|
BKSir -> RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override" (5/15/2009 1:31:05 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Imakemensquirm
I stand by my statement that marriage is the domain of the church, that is why most European countries require everyone to have a civil union prior to getting married in church. This was their way of preventing legal challenges down the road. As for what you refer to as a courthouse marriage, they are civil unions in law.
I'm of the completely opposite mind of this, believing that the church should get their noses out of it. If your church says something is the right way of doing things, and is running things, it's great. If someone else's church says it and is running things, then it's horrible and wrong. Welcome to how the most horrible of wars and atrocities in the world have started.
Now, calling it marriage, great, fine. Calling it civil unions, great, fine. Calling it a homo-hookin, great, fine. I really don't give a shit what it's called. I just want the same rights AND responsibilities as everyone else. I've been with the same person for 14 years now, and still some jerkoff nurse in a hospital can tell me "No, you can't go in and see him, because you're not legally married or related in any way.", if they damn well please. And don't say they won't do it. That's happened many times before and I can guarantee will happen again.
I want the right to inheretence when he dies, and vice versa, without having to worry about family taking everything away. The right to his pension from social security and the V.A. that would be given to his wife if he were to go to vegas tomorrow and marry a hooker, but is not afforded to me after being with him nearly half my life. Yes, think about that for a minute. He could wander off tomorrow and marry a hooker, he falls down the church stairs on the way out and breaks his neck and dies, she gets everything instantly. But after 14 years, I don't even have the solid right to go see him in the hospital and I get jack shit.
Of course, there are downsides to it too, and I don't care. As I said, I want the same rights and responsibilities, and I don't care what they choose to call it.
Marriage is nothing but a civil contract between people. No different than a business endeavor. You're basically creating an "Inc." when you get married. The church is nothing but pomp, circumstance, and yammering on out of some book. (No offense to the believers of any faith, but let's be honest, that's all it is).
And if you want the church involved, fine, I have a piece of paper from a commitment cerimony that is signed by TWO pastors, that says they think god says we're married. Want to know how much legal weight that carries though? I'll give you a hint. Somewhere between zero and none.
Now, I'm not saying no one should be allowed a church ceremony. If you want, fine, have a blast. I'm not going to let my faith/religion dictate how you can do something, and that's all I ask in return.
When we start having our own faith/religion dictate how others of different faiths/religions do things, you know what we end up with? Palestein and Israel. Of course to a lot of people, that's fine, because they're BOTH wrong... at least that's what the other churches that are not Muslim or Jewish or Islamic say. So hooray, we've now got a fourth, fifth, and/or sixth (or more) party in there fighting over whose god has a bigger dick.
If the church wants a say in the laws, or people at all wishing to bring faith into the matter, let them do so without hypocracy and duplicity. They quote Levitical law in this instance, saying it is an abomination. Levitical law also states that having a haircut and shaving your beard is an abomination. Laying with a woman during her 'time of month' is an abomination. Tattoos and piercings are an abomination. Bacon cheeseburgers are a double abomination, as is shrimp alfredo. All of these things are punishable under gods law, by death. I don't recall anywhere in the bible where god or jesus has come back and said "No, I changed my mind about this, that, or the other."
That kind of duplicity, in my opinion, should disqualify any side from any argument. It's akin to playing a football game where one team follows some of the rules, and the other team follows some other rules, some overlap, some don't. But it's okay for each team to play that way, because their respective coaches say so. Until, of course, the referee steps in and says, "Uh, no, here's the rule book. If you're going to play the game, you don't play with just some of the rules that are convenient to you at this moment. You play by them all or you get off the field."
..... >.>
/end novel
|
|
|
|
