|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 24, 2013 01:22 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:26, 24 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Well, marriage is kind of that contract itself. The ceremonial, romantic part is the glorification not the sub structure.
The ceremonial process of marriage should be separated from such legal contracts. If people want to combine them, then fine. If people want to sign such contracts without marrying, then that's fine too.
____________
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 01:38 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:38, 24 Apr 2013.
|
|
It's already like that, you can go to the city hall, sign in and done, you are married. Marriage is not necesserily religious or romantic. There are people who marry for money, citizenship (although they kind of check on that), childcare... etc etc.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 01:52 AM |
|
|
Double edged. Once you legally accept homosexuality as normal, there is no argument to not give it same rights.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 01:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Can't you have those kind of contracts without it being tied to marriage?
Sure. But that's just semantics.
____________
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
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 01:58 AM |
|
|
|
Since it is not considered a mental ilness clinically, I dont get what you mean by legally normal? What's illegal about being gay (in first world countries) ?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 02:05 AM |
|
|
I mean when you prohibit homosexuality discrimination legally, then it means you legally accept it as normal. It took some time to have such laws.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 02:16 AM |
|
|
This is a positive step. The ideal would be to have the government out of marriage altogether, but this is definitely an improvement over the status quo.
Regarding marriage benefits from government - obviously married couples benefit from them (except for people who experience the marriage penalty) but it's not clear why they should. All other things held constant, married people paying lower taxes means unmarried people paying higher taxes. Unless the benefits unmarried people derive from positive externalities from married people (that is, the existence of more married couples has a significant benefit to unmarried people - a benefit greater than the higher taxes they pay for giving married couples tax breaks) then there is no valid justification for this discrimination.
Regarding the redefinition of marriage - marriage has already been redefined many times. The fact that in civilized countries, men and women have equal rights in marriage (marital rape is illegal), more women are entering the labor force and more men are becoming stay-at-home dads, and marriages are based on love and not on politics show that marriage now is different from what it was in the past. To say "The traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman" is ahistorical - yes, the traditional definition of marriage is a man and a woman, but also key to the uniqueness of the relationship is that the woman is subservient to the man, there is a religious ceremony, etc. That kind of marriage is nearly dead in first-world countries, and good riddance. And yet conservatives don't act like traditional marriage is uncommon now, so they accepted that redefinition (they even accept that two atheists can get married, despite religion not being involved at all). In time, they'll accept this redefinition too. Many non-conservatives already have - if a gay couple lives like a straight married couple, many people find it natural to use the word "marriage" to describe their relationship.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 02:54 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 03:00, 24 Apr 2013.
|
The human species consists of two genders. Male and female. The male-female relationship is fundamental to humanity. It is the core around which society is built and the best place to raise a child.
Marriage has throughout all time been a male-female thing and society has recognized the special importance that relationship has to human existence. Governments have given married couples a tax break because it recognizes the importance of Mommy and Daddy being together and raising baby together. Children don't need two mommys or two daddys. They need Mommy and Daddy.
A tiny fraction of humanity thinks it has the right to redefine marriage and force everyone to accept that redefinition and is hateful and bigoted toward towards those who don't accept their right to redefine marriage.
If a society wishes to call something else marriage fine. Put it to a vote of the people. But when those of the gay fetish get to redefine marriage there is no justifiable reason why not to allow people to marry multiple men/women/animals.
There is one reason and one reason only for the gay activists to force the issue. They wish everyone to be forced to say gay relationships are the moral equivalent of the natural man-woman relationship.
In states where gay marriage has been legalized business owners who have a moral objection to gay "couples" are sued for not treating the gay "marriage" as equal to actual marriage. For example, a Christian photography business was sued because it refused to contract for photographs at a "gay wedding." The business even referred the lesbians to another photo service but they sued the Christians anyways.
Clicky
Quote:
he New Mexico Court of Appeals recently ruled against a photography company that said it refused to photograph a same-sex marriage ceremony. On May 31, the court upheld a ruling by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission against Elane Photography for violating the state's prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In 2006, Vanessa Willock asked Elane Photography in Albuquerque to photograph her same-sex commitment ceremony. Elane declined because it photographs only traditional weddings, not same-sex weddings. Willock filed and won a claim with the commission, alleging that she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation. We collected the arguments over specific issues below:
Most gay activists have the insane idea that they alone have rights and liberal legislators are kissing their ***. No one has freedom of conscience except for gays evidently. Liberal hypocrisy. True bigots.
Click for more examples
____________
Revelation
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 06:52 AM |
|
|
I agree with Elodin, this isn't about religion anymore, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I have nothing against homosexuals but I do not approve of this so-called marriage.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 07:00 AM |
|
|
It is crazy that the photographer was sued, it's not like a public institution decides who gets in and who doesn't. It is a private business and the guy has the right to decide to whom he offers services or not. He doesn't even need to explain the reasons.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 07:14 AM |
|
|
@Marriage
My gay guys do not need marriage because not believe in God.
You can take a girl 2. Think of the money. Marriage is not the issue.
I laughed for an hour sometimes. Truth can be realized, the teacher said.
Now choose the church or the church has had time?
But the child. They grow gay. I do not understand why accept.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 08:10 AM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 24 Apr 2013. |
|
Quote:
I agree with Elodin, this isn't about religion anymore, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I have nothing against homosexuals but I do not approve of this so-called marriage.
Please, please, please actually do some research before making absolute statements like this. There are, have been and always will be societies that allow homosexual marriages (Certain ancient Greek societies (Including Sparta), hundreds of tribes, most nomadic cultures and now countries like France). So our monogamous, heterosexual marriage definition is not really the only definition out there, and is in fact a revision to the word itself.
In this example, Christianity redefined the Judaic marriage to just one man and woman, where it was a polygamous system before (the Islamic faith did not make that shift). Why was this shift created? Because the religious leader/ prophet (a single man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth) decided to change its definition. That was a major controversy as well, since it went against more than a thousand years of tradition in Judaic faith. Hell, it went against the moral societal norm of the time... as in most "Developed" societies of the time still practiced polygamy or at least allowed it.
So the distinctly christian argument that marriage has always been between a single man and a single woman is... a redefinition of the roots of their own religion. In fact, it is a redefinition of the word in a way that really did not exist before hand except in very rare cases.
Now, in the case of this debate there is precedent for homosexual marriages in even the most primitive societal structures (tribes), spanning history to the modern day and, finally, our developed countries. Religious doctrine is not being forced to change, you can still believe that the marriage of your religion is set in stone, but you cannot force your religious definitions onto a person that does not have the same faith as you. The Muslim faith says it's patriarchally polygamous, the Christian faith says that it is one-man one-woman heterosuxual. Both definitions exist at the same time. Alright... so then a secular society, which is not tied to either faith, can say that it is a monogamous or polygamous (which has not been suggested) union that happens between consenting adults, regardless of gender or sexuality. And this definition can exist and still leave raligious doctrines alone. Why? Because by definition, a secular society exists outside of religion and religions exist as a special group within, but not politically influencing, the society. They are not allowed to influence each other beyond basic representation of peers (Christians/ Muslims that run for office and non-traditional Christans/ Muslims with secular leanings).
For this case exactly, that means that a specific religion, or even a conglomerate of religions, cannot define what a secular society accepts as marriage, and the society cannot force any religion to change their definition either. And unless one side or the other becomes militant about the definition, the two can coexist as has been proven by the coexistence of Christianity with the Islamic, Buddhist and Agnostic faith, as well as the Atheist non-faith which states that there does not have to be a god or higher power and directly contradicts every other faith. So you throw one more definition into the mix which can be just as valid (in fact, it would likely become the new agnostic/ atheistic definition), which does what exactly? Make things just a modicum more complicated, or a society that already does not conform to a specific religion's beliefs conform slightly less? I... don't see where the drama and strife enters in beyond a temper tantrum from already valid viewpoints being forced to recognize that another viewpoint has joined the party. Make room for the twelfth guy, and break out more booze for this shindig!
So then, if you look at it from that perspective... what is the problem?
Oh, and the reason why that perspective does not see the light of day is because it causes drama to plummet... not a good thing for the media, I'm afraid. They encourage the strife and militant viewpoints you see today by only airing the most extreme, so that you believe their are only two ways for this to work. (Either society bends to religion or religion bends to society) Everything else is ignored for more views and better ratings. Because, you know, people getting along is really a bad thing and should not happen. Ever. 
On the subject of the camera thing, I would like you refer you to the old lady and McDonalds incident. See, this old lady spills coffee on herself after she pulls out of a McDonalds driveway and she spills on herself, obtaining second degree burns in the process. So what does she do? She decides to sue the company for not warning her that the hot, freshly roasted coffee she ordered was hot and that she should not spill it on herself. Yeaaaaaaah... Such cases are done for nothing more than attention and money. Maybe mainly just the money in most cases (after all, she won millions of dollars from McDonalds on a completely BS trial that boiled down to "I'm stupid and you didn't warn me").
Much is the same with this photography thing, they felt slighted that a private business owner did not want to take pictures of an event that he did not morally agree with (Which, if they had done their research and had common sense, they would have realized before they had gone to him). I find the photographer in the right here, honestly, and I do not believe that he should be punished for refusing to service them and suggesting other photographers that might be willing to do so. Just like I do not believe that I should be sued for not attending religious ceremonies even though my friends want me to. It's just common decency, IMHO. Something that I find surprisingly lacking in the US these days. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 08:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I agree with Elodin, this isn't about religion anymore, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I have nothing against homosexuals but I do not approve of this so-called marriage.
Marriage is a social institution. As society changes, it can change as well. Until recently it rarely had anything to do with love either. The only "natural" thing related to it is procreation - and nobody has even needed the marriage as such for that.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 08:20 AM |
|
|
sweet, I can get married in Paris 
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 08:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
sweet, I can get married in Paris
And Iowa! 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 08:44 AM |
|
|
wtf. I assumed France would have done this years ago. Didn't they invent homosexuality in a lab or something?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 08:48 AM |
|
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 10:28 AM |
|
|
Conservatives can't accept that the world changes. They have been causing trouble when humanity matured to the point of dumping slavery ("because it has been done for generations"), they have been causing trouble when women were given rights ("because that's not how it worked for the last 1000 years"), and they cause one now - and about something as silly as semantics. "Because marriage has always been male+female". (not to mention that they are wrong on this matter and homosexual "marriages" or unions or whatever you want to call it were accepted in some cultures - but oh well, we all live in America).
Fortunately, conservatives can't stop the societies evolving and maturing, they are just moaning about stuff but nobody cares and the world goes on.
And that's very fortunate. Otherwise, we'd still keep slaves, treat women like furniture and consider priests walking gods.
Conservatism is the worst thing that can happen to a society: a motivation based on not real arguments, but "it has been done for XYZ years, so it has to be good" stupid backwards way of thinking. No offense to conservatists of course: I don't criticize you personally, only the whole "conservative" movement when it happens without arguments other than "it has been done for XYZ years".
Seriously, if a conservative wishes to enter a discussion and provide arguments, he should restrain himself from using the "argument" above. Truth is, nobody othert than him cares whether his great-great-Grandpa used to think like that - and arguments as subjective as that have no real value.
As for marriage, I consider it obsolete.
(of course, there are issues with overzealous equalization of genders and orientation - the whole mother/father word issue was ridiculous to me. On that case I have to agree with Elodin, lol)
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 10:47 AM |
|
|
On the other side, often younger generation has no clues about history, traditions and claim to reinvent the world. The so-called revolutionary thinking is as dangerous as conservative one, if no limits designed.
In France now there is big agitation because this law, but it has more to do with the executive's mental diarrhea than homos marriage. Every single thing is going down: salaries, jobs, homes availability, taxes constantly increasing while the only things the executive is discussing since months is homos marriage and if politics should publicly declare revenues.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 10:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
On the other side, often younger generation has no clues about history, traditions and claim to reinvent the world. The so-called revolutionary thinking is as dangerous as conservative one, if no limits designed.
I agree. What I'm against here is the argument "it's been done for XYZ years". It's the most empty argument EVER, yet many conservatives use it as their "ace in the sleeve".
As for younger people trying to reinvent the cultural wheel - I firmly believe that life teaches a lot itself, as long as they are not living in a sheltered world granted to them by their overly rich parents.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
