Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government? (Jesus, priests)

[chris9178]

Bastet:

The majority should not be able to vote on the civil rights of the minority.

Marriage is not a civil right. I'm guessing, by that statement, that you don't know what a civil right is. Check a dictionary.

This really is simple high school civics stuff.

So shoul I guess that you're still in high school?

Nobody is asking for special treatment; just equal treatment.

Amen, sister!

Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me that I don't love my partner, just as much as a heterosexual couple loves?

I'm guessing in your passion of the topic you're just rambling incoherently. This isn't about love.

Who the hell are you to tell me that I don't deserve those "bonuses" involved in a legally recognised marriage?

I'm a registered voter.
I'm curious how far your hypocrisy might go.
Would you vote for the rights of a man to marry his dog (female or male), if technology progressed far enough for a dog to say "I do"?
That's hypothetical, but certainly plausible at some point in the future.
The point of this question isn't, should a person be able to marry who they want, but should we put limits on marriage at all.
If you're of the opinion that marriage should have NO limits at all, then at least your consistent.... though many would probably add strange.
But if you believe there should be limits to marriage, then basically the arguement only turns to what degree it should be limited. Then, everybody has the right to the opinion, and the vote, of what that degree should be.
Now if one says that he supports gay-marriage, but finds man-animal marriage reprehensible, and then goes so far as to bash someone for sticking up for [b]their/B] principles of no gay-marriage, then that person is a hypocrit.
And I'm sure most of you are thinking "That's ridiculous, saying that people would ever consider letting a man marry a dog!", and then disregard that as a weak arguement. Well, in the late 1700's, when our laws began being made, wouldn' they have responded the same way to some man who was considering marrying his gay lover? It's a graduating process.
That being said, principles, morals, and values are considered subjective by most people.....

You know what one of those "bonuses" would be for me? Being able to live in the same country as my partner. Currently we're on opposite sides of the world. How do you call that fair?

Excuse me, did the government choose your partner for you? The laws have been consistent for many, many years. Sounds more like a case of blaming the government for your own lack of foresight. In otherwords, shifting responsibility.

Spinkles:

Um, no. Telling you that gay marriage should be legal is me expressing my opinion, and people are allowed to express their opinions in this country. To find out what a dictatorship is really like, try visiting North Korea.

Try rereading my post.

What I said:

Now if you want to turn it around and say that PEOPLE shouldn't vote against gay marriage, then that's another story. But then you're telling people to vote the way you want them too, and not allowing them to have their own opinions. And that's wrong. In fact.... that woul be more like a dictatorship, wouldn't it?

To find out what a dictatorship is really like, try visiting North Korea.

Thank you. Calling America a dictatorship, or an oppressive country is childish when you realize what a true dictatorship is like. Ask the Iraqis.

Excuse me, Mr. Bigot, but why should other people get to dictate what some people do, if what they do harms no one?

You're assuming that I'm anti-gay marriage when I'm not. If a person believes its wrong, then the one would say that the act of homosexuality is wrong, not the marriage. Whether their married, or not, shouldn't matter to a christian who believes that homosexuality is wrong to begin with. I simply defend the wight of a person to have his own beliefs, and vote the way he wants.
Saying things like:

whether a secular government has any right to discriminate against such marriages based on your personal religious considerations, and the answer is clearly "No".

is absurd, and I'll argue that all day long.


You know, if you people would spend more time EDUCATING people and explaining to them how gay marriage isn't an encroachment on their religion, then you'd go a lot further in getting those votes than you would on blaming those "religious fanatics" in "Jesusland" and automatically turning them off of what you have to say. Now, if all your doing is trying to blow off some steam, and degrade people for not having your point of view, then fine. It may help you get it off your chest, but it certainly won't convince anybody. Evrybody knows that when you go and attack somebody like that, then their first response will to get defensive, and then you completely lose your message.

[michel]

Phew! I voted with the majority; allways worries me if I don't.
Vive la difference!
Seriously, why not?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by chris

Try rereading my post.

I did, and I'm still of the opinion that me expressing my opinion is not anything like a dictatorship. To suggest that by telling people they should have voted differently I am therefore not allowing them to have their own opinions, is to create a false dilemma: I can do the former and stop short of the latter.

[Ceridwen018]

Originally Posted by chris

I'm guessing in your passion of the topic you're just rambling incoherently. This isn't about love.

Then what, praytell, IS it about?

Would you vote for the rights of a man to marry his dog (female or male), if technology progressed far enough for a dog to say "I do"?

I would vote yes. If an animal has the ability to consent to such a thing, why should it be illegal? The only thing that keeps me from agreeing to letting animals and humans get married right now, is that animals do not yet have the ability understand what marriage is, let alone consent to it.

If you're of the opinion that marriage should have NO limits at all, then at least your consistent

The only limit I would put on marriage, is that both partners need to be able to consent to it.

That being said, principles, morals, and values are considered subjective by most people.....

...but not by you?

Excuse me, did the government choose your partner for you? The laws have been consistent for many, many years. Sounds more like a case of blaming the government for your own lack of foresight. In otherwords, shifting responsibility.

Now you're flailing. The government doesn't choose partners any more than partners choose themselves. Obviously, you've never been in love, otherwise you would not have made such a ridiculous comment.

[Fluffy]

But if you believe there should be limits to marriage, then basically the arguement only turns to what degree it should be limited. Then, everybody has the right to the opinion, and the vote, of what that degree should be.

What if I am of the opinion that what I believe is right and everyone else who shares a different belief is wrong? I am happy to let them keep their beliefs but I will not let them opress others based upon these beliefs. Therefore, I don't think that people have a right to vote on this subject unless they wish to approve of gay marriages. My objective here is not to convince others that homosexuality is okay since I have long come to the conclusion that people see what they want to see and I cannot show them otherwise. Therefore it is pointless for me to try and win a vote on this. I can only inflict my will onto others and hope that I win. Changing views can happen with their children.

[Pah]

Marriage is not a civil right. I'm guessing, by that statement, that you don't know what a civil right is. Check a dictionary.

I hope, in your wildest dreams, you don't think it is a sacred right, a sectarian right. You need to check law books and the history of the Catholic Church and the start of the Protestant reformation. Marriage has been a civil right since the early colonial period of the United States.

I won't repeat the tripe of the rest your argument but will classify it as ignorant It's refutation has been given so many times that it is becoming a bore.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by chris9178

I'm guessing in your passion of the topic you're just rambling incoherently. This isn't about love.

No, apparently it's about the evil homosexuals eroding the fabric of society. Not to mention their illicit yearnings for the right to inherit property as a matter of course, which as we all know they can't achieve by any other means than same sex marriage.

Originally Posted by chris9178

Excuse me, did the government choose your partner for you? The laws have been consistent for many, many years. Sounds more like a case of blaming the government for your own lack of foresight. In otherwords, shifting responsibility.

So we can understand WHY you think the whole thing has nothing to do with love, because I don't think you have the faintest idea what love is. Normal people don't sit down, weigh up the pros and cons and then say,'Yeah, loving them is probably a fairly safe bet for the future.'
Maybe that's why it's described as 'falling' in love, rather than 'sitting down with a coffee and some cake while I debate the finer points with myself' in love.

Originally Posted by chris9178

You know, if you people would spend more time EDUCATING people and explaining to them how gay marriage isn't an encroachment on their religion, then you'd go a lot further in getting those votes than you would on blaming those "religious fanatics" in "Jesusland" and automatically turning them off of what you have to say. Now, if all your doing is trying to blow off some steam, and degrade people for not having your point of view, then fine. It may help you get it off your chest, but it certainly won't convince anybody. Evrybody knows that when you go and attack somebody like that, then their first response will to get defensive, and then you completely lose your message.

You know, if the people who are uninformed and fearful enough to believe that any way other than their way is the wrong way weren't having their bigotry pandered to by stupidity like these amendments, we wouldn't even be having this debate. As for being on the attack, when was the last time a group of gay men went out and beat up a straight guy, just because he WAS straight?
There are plenty of people who just aren't interested in the message...they're too busy out knocking on doors trying to push THEIR message to give a **** about what anyone else has to say.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I wish someone could give me even one legitimate (albeit non-religious) reason to ban gay marriage. Just one reason with substance! I really do. Because as it stands, there seem to be no such reasons to ban gay marriage. And that makes me think that a whole lot of people who oppose gay marriage are irrational. I don't like thinking that many people are basically irrational, so I devoutly wish someone could give me just one legitimate reason to ban gay marriage.

"Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. You don't think it is a legitimate reason when it's based on religious beliefs (and Christians are not the only ones who have this view btw) but to people who hold this view, it is a legitimate reason. If we vote to allow gay marriage, then we are giving tacit approval to homosexuality, which is forbidden by our God.

I don't understand why this bothers people. It doesn't bother me that you want the opposite, and are actually gaining ground, and will probably get the legal right to marry since that does not weigh on my soul. If I vote *for* a law that is against my beliefs, that *will* weigh on my soul. You want your rights, but you would deny me mine?

I've noticed this topic has become quite heated and has dropped into personal insults so if you just want to insult me, go for it but I won't bother responding. If you want to engage me in a debate over my views in a courteous fashion, I'm more than happy to respond.

[retrorich]

Originally Posted by pah

I hope, in your wildest dreams, you don't think it is a sacred right, a sectarian right. You need to check law books and the history of the Catholic Church and the start of the Protestant reformation. Marriage has been a civil right since the early colonial period of the United States.

I won't repeat the tripe of the rest your argument but will classify it as ignorant It's refutation has been given so many times that it is becoming a bore.

I agree, Pah. And I would further classify it as diarrhea of the keyboard.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Melody

"Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. You don't think it is a legitimate reason when it's based on religious beliefs (and Christians are not the only ones who have this view btw) but to people who hold this view, it is a legitimate reason. If we vote to allow gay marriage, then we are giving tacit approval to homosexuality, which is forbidden by our God.

May I remind you that legitimate law in this country is Constitutional law and biblical law has no standing or authority. The only legitimacy of anti-homosexualism is personal whatever the worldview.

I don't understand why this bothers people. It doesn't bother me that you want the opposite, and are actually gaining ground, and will probably get the legal right to marry since that does not weigh on my soul. If I vote *for* a law that is against my beliefs, that *will* weigh on my soul. You want your rights, but you would deny me mine?

I would not personally ask you to vote for something not in your worldview but I could rightly ask that you not vote against homosexuality based on your worldview as it is not part of secular law. What I believe Sunstone asked for is the secular reasons you might vote to deny basic human rights.

I've noticed this topic has become quite heated and has dropped into personal insults so if you just want to insult me, go for it but I won't bother responding. If you want to engage me in a debate over my views in a courteous fashion, I'm more than happy to respond.

We would be more than happy to debate secular reasons for disapproving homosexual marriage