Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[Feathers in Hair]

Yes, absolutely, they should. I could think of more secular reasons why it should be so than I can think of ones where it shouldn't be. (Also non-secular ones, but that's beside the point!) Doing so would stimulate the economy, give health-care options to those that might not have them otherwise, and also create a greater reputation for the country that does it among the international community.

 

[michel]

It will be if I don't say it. I know without a doubt that if I don't say it, somebody will make it an issue.

Do you mean in general, or on the forum ?

 

[Flappycat]

If a couple's eldest son just graduated from State, and they're raising up three others while holding down a job and running a business between the two of them, I'd like to know what's flying around in your skull if you have a problem calling them a family. Most of them make finer parents than you ever will, so I suggest you take notes from them rather than trying to give them trouble.

 

[Flappycat]

Yes, they should be recongnized secularly, but churches should not be forced to recognize/preform them.

That's not even on the table, and I suggest you start voicing your support for seperation between church and state if you want to keep it off the table. Loudly, I suggest, so you can be heard over the cretins who are trying to pass off creation myths as science.

 

[Aqualung]

Do you mean in general, or on the forum ?

Both, I guess, though I must admit I don't usually discuss this sort of thing outside of the forum.

That's not even on the table, and I suggest you start voicing your support for seperation between church and state if you want to keep it off the table. Loudly, I suggest, so you can be heard over the cretins who are trying to pass off creation myths as science.

What? :areyoucra I don't even understand what you mean.

 

[jeffrey]

Frubals on your head, flappycat.

 

[jeffrey]

I think the churches ought to be stopped from funding legistration to stop same sex marriages. Separation of church from state AND separation of state from church. Gays deserve the same status in all respects.

 

[Aqualung]

I think the churches ought to be stopped from funding legistration to stop same sex marriages. Separation of church from state AND separation of state from church. Gays deserve the same status in all respects.

Why? Shouldn't they be allowed to use their money however they want?

 

[Green Gaia]

Why? Shouldn't they be allowed to use their money however they want?

Of course they should. But it would be nice if the stopped so us religious liberals can start using our money for things other than fighting against anti-equality legislation backed by the religious on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[mr.guy]

Maize,

Doesn't tax exemption give churches a certain advantages when funding lobbyists?

 

[Green Gaia]

Maize,

Doesn't tax exemption give churches a certain advantages when funding lobbyists?

I'm no expert, but I my understanding is as long as the group is non-partisan it's OK for churches to contribute money to the organization. For example, my church contributes money to Equality Virginia which is a statewide, non-partisan lobbying, education and support network for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and straight allied (GLBT) communities in Virginia.

 

[pdoel]

Why? Shouldn't they be allowed to use their money however they want?

Not that simple of an issue. A Church is considered a tax exempt institution.

I think if they start using their money to influence politicians, they should lose that tax exempt status.

 

[Aqualung]

Not that simple of an issue. A Church is considered a tax exempt institution.

I think if they start using their money to influence politicians, they should lose that tax exempt status.

Ah, good point. I agree with you on that one.

 

[Green Gaia]

Bumping this poll back up for newer folks.


The Question: Should same-sex relationships be recognized by a secular government if that same government recognizes opposite-sex couples?

If not, what is the secular reason against it doing so?

I'm still waitng on a secular reason against legal same-sex marriages...

 

[BUDDY]

I'm still waitng on a secular reason against legal same-sex marriages...

Look, I can't understand what it must be like to be in a situation in which you must live a life without the possibility of being able to marry the person that you love. I feel for you, I really do. I also realize that a lot of the arguments presented are more about excluding gays than about defending marriage. I don't believe that I am homophobic. I want all people to live in joy and love, and I respect the relationship that gays have with one another even though it is not what I would do myself.

But, no matter how hard I try, I cannot keep from bumping into the same wall. For the entire history of civilization, marriage has been between men and women. In every religion, every culture, every society marriage has been reserved for male and female, with very few and very rare exceptions. Same sex marriage would be radical reform, and a break with all of western history.

I am sorry, but I am not ready to make that change. Not when we are talking about one of the redrock institution of all of civilization. I am not even sure that I can give you any real good reasons. It's just that what is being asked for is too much.

 

[Mike182]

I'm still waitng on a secular reason against legal same-sex marriages...

you will keep waiting for a long time, simply because there are non well, non that are worthy or an actual debate at least

 

[BUDDY]

Actually, Freidrich Hayak said it better than I ever could:

"It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own limitations. It is essential for the growth of reason that as individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles which we cannot hope fully to understand, yet on which the advance and even the preservation of civilization depends. Historically this has been achieved by the influence of the various religious creeds and by traditions and superstitions which made man submit to those forces by an appeal to his emotions rather than to his reason. The most dangerous stage in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them. This may well prove a hurdle which man will repeatedly reach, only to be thrown back into barbarism."

 

[Green Gaia]

But, no matter how hard I try, I cannot keep from bumping into the same wall. For the entire history of civilization, marriage has been between men and women. In every religion, every culture, every society marriage has been reserved for male and female, with very few and very rare exceptions. Same sex marriage would be radical reform....

So was democracy... so was giving women the right to vote... so was treating non-white folks as equal citizens... societies do not go unchanged. They must change and adapt to the needs and the sensibilities of it's citizens.

I am sorry, but I am not ready to make that change.

No one is asking you to marry another man. And no one is asking you to like that 2 men or 2 women have the legal option to protect each through marriage. But it is simply not fair that a secular government gives special rights to one couple and then excludes another couple simply because of their gender. It's not fair. I understand it is a hard thing for some people to come to terms with given the homophobic society we've all grown up in. But you don't want others telling you who you can have legal agreements with... and we don't that either. And that's all this is about. I don't care if you accept me, I don't care if you support me, I don't care if you think same-sex relationships are horrible... but you don't have the right to deny me the same rights you have.

Tell me why I don't deserve the same legal rights as you, Buddy.

 

[Green Gaia]

Actually, Freidrich Hayak said it better than I ever could:

"It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own limitations. It is essential for the growth of reason that as individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles which we cannot hope fully to understand, yet on which the advance and even the preservation of civilization depends. Historically this has been achieved by the influence of the various religious creeds and by traditions and superstitions which made man submit to those forces by an appeal to his emotions rather than to his reason. The most dangerous stage in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them. This may well prove a hurdle which man will repeatedly reach, only to be thrown back into barbarism."

I see nothing in that quote that specifically addresses the issue of same-sex legal marriage.

 

[BUDDY]

Tell me why I don't deserve the same legal rights as you, Buddy.

Simple answer is, I don't have a legal right to marry someone of the same sex as me. Other than that I can't honestly think of anything.