RE: Gay marriage

RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 2:55:33 PM)
some good comments here. I cant imagine trusting someone so deeply to become one- in that legal matter....the other person can ruin my life. If I mess up, it is on me. But to take on that another might mess up? no. committed couples are good for a community. where there is such- there is a deeper connection to the town.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 3:50:11 PM)
Well I for one am not in favour of gay, 'orrible word, marriage. I certainly do not idealise heterosexual marriage and I realise that it is only a convention but the underlying imperative is human sexuality which leads to the next generation. Thats what I read in a book anyway. Hopefully this nuclear family will be stable and considerate and produce well rounded adults. Since this situation is beyond the reach of homosexuals it follows that heterosexual marriage is special and should remain that way. No doubt secular Liberals know better but IMO their record on so called improvements in the social sphere is not very good. The more mistakes they make the more confident they become. Just to list a few Break down in law and order. Collapse of basic standards in mass education. Sexually transmitted disease at epidemic proportions. Mass immigration leading to increase in disease eg TB,Hepititus , HIV Welfare expenditure spiralling out of control. So the question is do they know best ? Well do YOU ?

Irishknight -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 4:04:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly a friend of ours is dealing with this right now. Neither Jim or i are catholic. A catholic most certainly CAN divorce. When have you ever seen an application for divorce asking for the applicants religion? It doesn't happen. Divorce is a legal process. Aince Holly pointed that bit out, I wanted to stress that. If marriage is a purely religious creation then it could not be dissolved by a court. Since churches are not at liberty to divorce anyone, we must be talking about a legal contract.

beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 4:07:45 PM)
Which brings up the issue of since a marriage being a religious creation and divorce being a legal matter, it shows that religion and politics are quite intertwined.Which leads me to wonder if there was an actual separation of the church and the state, then this whole debate about gay marriages wouldn't be so volatile?

Irishknight -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 4:14:36 PM)
But a marriage performed by the church without the state paperwork doesn't count. A marriage performed by the state without the sanction of the church does. It is and always has been a legal contract. The church just added their trappings to it to control more of people's lives.

beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 4:18:54 PM)
Irishknight, do you think that if it was solely the state's responsibility for marriages, then then this issue of who has and hasn't a right to marry would be invalid?

Vendaval -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 4:51:55 PM)
Here in California we have a similar situation, Proposition 8. I am voting no on 8. U.S. citizens should have equal marriage rights under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.

Moloch -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 4:56:00 PM)
Hmm don't have time to read all 6 pages. Man and a Woman? What about people born with mixed fun parts? Or do they not exist in the state of florida?

tsatske -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 5:41:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight But a marriage performed by the church without the state paperwork doesn't count. A marriage performed by the state without the sanction of the church does. You are saying apples and oranges. Actually, although I don't think your point is salient to the arguement, You happen to be right on the point, I am simply pointing out that you are doing apples and oranges. What you are saying is 'But a marriage preformed by only the church without the state's consent, does not count in the eyes of the state, whereas a marriage preformed only by the state without the sanction of the church, does count in the eyes of the state'. To compare apples to apples, you would have to say, 'but a marriage preformed by the church without state sanction, does not count in the eyes of the state, whereas a marriage preformed by the state without church sanction, does count in the eyes of the church.' And, as long as we have only hetrosexual marriage, this remains true, for most churches that you might use as an example, (though not all). However, if we start allowing gay marriage, then church and state sanctioned marriage will be on equal footing in this way, with each not necessarrily recognizing the other. Okay, that is not strictly true, and so it would not be strictly equal. The state is never going to recognize a church only marriage, whereas most (not all) churches will recognize a state - only marriage as long as it meets their criteria for a valid marriage. In the Catholic church, no third party is required to make a marriage valid at all. The church recognizes a marriage when only the two people are there when they make their vows. However, where there was no valid need of such a choice, the church questions the validity of the marrige in terms of, why did they make that choice?

tsatske -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 5:44:03 PM)
quote: Hmm don't have time to read all 6 pages. Man and a Woman? What about people born with mixed fun parts? Or do they not exist in the state of florida? The sexiest sub on CM already asked that question. She is a Cannuck, of course, so she doesn't need the answer so much, but it is a good question. And I think she touched my titties. (or went looking for my Bi son, one or tother.)

kittinSol -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 5:45:33 PM)
My wedding was conducted by a non-religious JoP. Is my marriage invalid?

tsatske -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 5:52:10 PM)
Are you asking for a Catholic answer, kittenSol? The Catholic Answer is that, if a true marriage has at any time occured, either before or after the wedding, your marriage is valid. (A true Marriage is what occurs in the hearts of the two people) If you, or He, had been a Catholic, then, if you later wanted an annulment, you could use the fact that you did not marry in the church as one piece of evedence that a true marriage never occured. The investigator would ask - if one or both of you were Catholic, if you had true intent in your marriage vows, why did you eschew a Catholic marriage? However, that is only relevent to a devout Catholic, as it goes to show intent. For anyone else, the question is not even there. If you took your vows with true intent; if at some point before or after that the two of you merged - then, yes, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, you have a valid marriage.

beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 5:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tsatske quote: Hmm don't have time to read all 6 pages. Man and a Woman? What about people born with mixed fun parts? Or do they not exist in the state of florida? The sexiest sub on CM already asked that question. She is a Cannuck, of course, so she doesn't need the answer so much, but it is a good question. And I think she touched my titties. (or went looking for my Bi son, one or tother.) That is only true for the Southern part of the province. I am the sexiest sub north of Barrie!

kittinSol -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 6:01:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tsatske Are you asking for a Catholic answer, kittenSol? No, tsatske, it was a rhetorical answer. I'm Jewish, so I doubt the Catholic church would marry me under any circumstances, lest I converted ages prior to my wedding [:D] .

slvemike4u -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 6:11:50 PM)
Damm Kittin,I was holding out hope your marriage was invalid.....I know thats real shitty of me... but I am at heart a bastard.

MistresseLotus -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 6:27:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thunderbird56 What a crock! What authority does the "state" have to intercede into my marriage? The answer is NONE! How do they even justify a marriage license? I'm single, but if and when I choose to marry it will be an agreement, a contract, between me and my partner and if we so choose our "god". I've even heard the "God Nazis" use scare tactics like, "Well, if two men or two women can marry each other, where does it stop?". "Next, some guy will want to marry his horse!". Sorry, can't happen, a horse can't legally enter into a contract. I'm so sick of these people trying to enforce their morality on everyone, and it's not just this issue. Why don't they understand that this country was based on FREEDOM, not enforced morality andbe a unique work for a Gay marriage intolerance! I'm straight, by the way. I think it's more about the word "marriage". When you hear it you automatically think "man, woman, kids" ...the word will have no more identity other than just a commitment that is legally recognised. I always thought a civil union held all the rights as a marriage does..no? I can see a date.."Hi.. have you ever been married?" Other:" Yes".."Uhhh.. to a male or female?" Maybe a unique word to identify a gay marriage?

beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 6:46:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus I think it's more about the word "marriage". When you hear it you automatically think "man, woman, kids" ...the word will have no more identity other than just a commitment that is legally recognised. I always thought a civil union held all the rights as a marriage does..no? I can see a date.."Hi.. have you ever been married?" Other:" Yes".."Uhhh.. to a male or female?" Maybe a unique word to identify a gay marriage? Here in Canada, a common law couple do have the same rights as a marriage. And these same rights also include property division, child support, alimony, etc which a married couple faces when they are going through a divorce. What gets to be confusing is the majority of gay couple refer their other half as their "partner" yet I've noticed over the past several years that straight couples are also following this trend also! In some ways it would be less complicated if we did have a term which clearly identifies a couple who are of the same gender. I find it's quite annoying to get very specific by saying I'm in a same sex relationship and others are still clueless until I have to add "with another man!"

Irishknight -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 6:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus I think it's more about the word "marriage". When you hear it you automatically think "man, woman, kids" ...the word will have no more identity other than just a commitment that is legally recognised. I always thought a civil union held all the rights as a marriage does..no? I can see a date.."Hi.. have you ever been married?" Other:" Yes".."Uhhh.. to a male or female?" Maybe a unique word to identify a gay marriage? You automatically think that way. Being poly, I think man, wife, wife, wife, and kids. Slaves and subs can be added to that mix as well. The belief that one man can have more than one wife is common to a number of religions. Again, the intersection of state and religion. I have the religious right to have more than one spouse yet am persecuted by the state and only allowed one. We don't need unique worrds to talk about gay marriage. We need to use the words "equal" and "fair." They are supposed to be in our vocabularies already.

GreedyTop -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 6:59:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus I think it's more about the word "marriage". When you hear it you automatically think "man, woman, kids" ...the word will have no more identity other than just a commitment that is legally recognised. I always thought a civil union held all the rights as a marriage does..no? I can see a date.."Hi.. have you ever been married?" Other:" Yes".."Uhhh.. to a male or female?" Maybe a unique word to identify a gay marriage? You automatically think that way. Being poly, I think man, wife, wife, wife, and kids. Slaves and subs can be added to that mix as well. The belief that one man can have more than one wife is common to a number of religions. Again, the intersection of state and religion. I have the religious right to have more than one spouse yet am persecuted by the state and only allowed one. We don't need unique worrds to talk about gay marriage. We need to use the words "equal" and "fair." They are supposed to be in our vocabularies already. I totally agree with the bolded statement.....

corysub -> RE: Gay marriage (10/22/2008 7:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PlayfulOne Here in Florida we have Proposition 2 on the ballot this election. it is a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. I just saw a commercial which claimed they were not taking rights away from anyone jsut defining what a marriage was. There are many legal rights that come with being married. Denying a group the rights to marriage is denying them those rights. Personally I will be voting no. Currently it doesn't look like it is going to pass since Jeb Bush (at least one Bush did something right) helped push through a law making 60% of the vote neccesary for a constitutional amendment. My question is, How can so many people who want the government out of things decide it is ok for the government to legislate something so personal as marriage? K I think gay couples should be given all the rights as hetero couples, but I also believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with sexuality as such, it is what I believe, period. I have a number of gay friends,am bi myself, and we try not to bring this subject up in conversation. One of my favorite couples (man/man) has been together for over twenty years, a lot longer than some of my formerly married friends. However, it's my belief that "marriage", as an institution, should be only between a man and woman. Not being married has not impaired the relationship of these two guys who love each other, and they are now getting all the benefits in healthcare that hetero couples get. In my opinion, granting same sex couples the governmental blessing of a "marriage", if not a religious blessing, will harm and generate more ill will towards gays that have been given what has been their rights as citizens up to this point in time. Maybe after my generation dies off and the culture "changes"...there is that word again...the country might be more amenable to same sex marriage. The gay community should fight for full citizen rights with their partner equal to married male/female couples...but I'm afraid pushing too far, too fast, could have unintended consequences. It would be very naieve on their part not to understand that there could be a negative reaction. Particularly in tough economic times, minority groups are not going to find as willing an audience as when people are prospering and could care less....

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875