Same sex marriages. Your opinion?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: So where exactly does this institutuion we are all supposed to beleive in exist?

In the collective minds of the society's majority. [/QUOTE]Huh? Collective minds? Society's majority? Are we the Borg or are we individuals? And to top that off, you can read not only minds, but the collective minds of society's majority. Whoa, I'm impressed. [/QUOTE]Sociology involves the study of the collective psychology of a nation. Are you disputing such a field of study exists?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Are we the Borg or are we individuals?

Bear in mind my r/l name is Hugh.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: Sociology involves the study of the collective psychology of a nation. Are you disputing such a field of study exists?

Nope. Show me these sociology studies that prove what you are saying. That a majority of people have the exact same veiws on marriage.

Also, to use sociological terms, a significant minority doesn't make belief in homosexual marriage a cultural taboo or the hallmark of a subculture either.

From a sociological standpoint, our culture is mostly comprised of many significant minorities. To qualify as being outside the mainstream culture requires that behavior be outside the normal practices of the culture. Watch network television and you will see that homosexuality is not outside the main stream anymore.

Also sociology occasionally changes whats tabboo and what is norm, what is culture and what is subculture, so its not exactly an exact science. It changes just as society does.

With regards to homosexuality and sexuality in general, our society is changing, and has been for a while now. So yesterdays norm isn't neccessarily todays.

Of course it has been many years since I studied sociology, so I may be rusty on my use and application of terminology and such, so any sociologists who are reading this feel free to correct the errors of my way.

[Grojlach]

Sorry for actually daring to drag this one on-topic ( ), but as Sir Kenyth started this particular topic because of the latest news from the Vatican, maybe an interesting article on the subject:

Legal warning to church on gay stance

Liam Reid
Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican's latest publication describing homosexual activity as "evil" could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has warned that the language in the 12-page booklet is so strong it could be interpreted as being in breach of the Act.
Published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it states that Catholics have a duty to oppose the introduction and operation of legislation recognising same-sex unions. It identifies politicians as having a duty to vote against any such moves.
According to the document, Catholic teaching states that while homosexuals should be treated with "respect, compassion and sensitivity", homosexuality was "objectively disordered".
"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimisation of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalisation of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil," it states.
It also claims that allowing children to be adopted into same-sex unions would mean "doing violence to these children". This would place them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development".
Ms Aisling Reidy, director of the ICCL, warned yesterday that the statement could be in violation of the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act. Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.
"The document itself may not violate the Act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the Act," according to Ms Reidy. "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation."
Under the Act literature which is threatening, abusive or insulting, linked with the intent of stirring up hatred, is illegal.

Source: Irish Times

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Are we the Borg or are we individuals?

Bear in mind my r/l name is Hugh. [/QUOTE]LOL!!!

[Skunk]

"The document itself may not violate the Act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the Act," according to Ms Reidy. "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation."

That's a bizarre interpretation. That's the equivilent of having a gun, which you legally possessed, being stolen and used in a murder and *you* getting charged with the murder because it was your gun!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Sociology involves the study of the collective psychology of a nation. Are you disputing such a field of study exists?

Nope. Show me these sociology studies that prove what you are saying. That a majority of people have the exact same veiws on marriage.

Also, to use sociological terms, a significant minority doesn't make belief in homosexual marriage a cultural taboo or the hallmark of a subculture either.

From a sociological standpoint, our culture is mostly comprised of many significant minorities. To qualify as being outside the mainstream culture requires that behavior be outside the normal practices of the culture. Watch network television and you will see that homosexuality is not outside the main stream anymore.

Also sociology occasionally changes whats tabboo and what is norm, what is culture and what is subculture, so its not exactly an exact science. It changes just as society does.

With regards to homosexuality and sexuality in general, our society is changing, and has been for a while now. So yesterdays norm isn't neccessarily todays.

Of course it has been many years since I studied sociology, so I may be rusty on my use and application of terminology and such, so any sociologists who are reading this feel free to correct the errors of my way. [/QUOTE]Chewbacca, you asked where the institution resides. It's a social entity so it resides in the collective psychology of the majority - for the majority are the determining force of a society. Whether there is complete similarity of interpretation of that institution is irrelevent.

[Mouse]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: I’m happy for there to be one ceremony, either civil or religious as long as it conforms to the criteria above

Then we are in agreement, except for one thing.

I do not think any aspect of a ceremony should be required. I don't believe a ceremony should be required at all. A couple should simply be able to move in together, fill out a form and be thus legally married. As was the case in the old testament actually.

Any requirements that force a ceremony on a couple for them to be legally married are ridiculous in my mind.[/QUOTE]Then I suggest you avail yourself of the democratic process and lobby your elected representatives to change the law to have it conform to your views. If or until you manage to achieve this then you will have to conform to the status quo.

Just the same way that those who support a change in the law are attempting to have homosexual unions given the same legal status as heterosexual unions via legislative change.

Like it or not, that's the way things work in a democracy

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Sorry for actually daring to drag this one on-topic ( ), but as Sir Kenyth started this particular topic because of the latest news from the Vatican, maybe an interesting article on the subject: Legal warning to church on gay stance Liam Reid Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican's latest publication describing homosexual activity as "evil" could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation.

Sure. You could also say it also incites hatred against divorcees, prostitutes, thiefs, people who argue with their parents, Jews, liars, lazy people, people who cheat on their taxes, people who have a desire for a married person, or if they are married and desire another person, or millions of other types of people that are living in a "non-intended state".

Or you could look at the literature that speaks of loving the person but detesting the action. Of the doctrine that preaches accepting the individual unconditionally.

Why even have religions at all, if they can't speak out about the values they are holding? Is this a tolerant society or not?

It seems the tolerance is a one way street. Anti-church homosexual representatives are allowed to pillory religious leaders, but the freedom doesn't extend the other way.

I am fervently against homosexual discrimination. As I mentioned a close friend
of mine in NYC was beaten up last weekend because of his openly displayed sexual preference.

People that choose to hate gays and justify it through religious material are selective in what they are receiving from the church. By hating or hurting gays, the haters are perpetuating "evil".

It's just getting ridiculous. Gays should be allowed to be who they are, religions should be free to speak out about what they believe. A democratic society shouldn't be condemned outright for making decisions about what values it upholds and what ones it doesn't.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: I’m happy for there to be one ceremony, either civil or religious as long as it conforms to the criteria above

Then we are in agreement, except for one thing.

I do not think any aspect of a ceremony should be required. I don't believe a ceremony should be required at all. A couple should simply be able to move in together, fill out a form and be thus legally married. As was the case in the old testament actually.

Any requirements that force a ceremony on a couple for them to be legally married are ridiculous in my mind.[/QUOTE]Then I suggest you avail yourself of the democratic process and lobby your elected representatives to change the law to have it conform to your views. If or until you manage to achieve this then you will have to conform to the status quo.

Just the same way that those who support a change in the law are attempting to have homosexual unions given the same legal status as heterosexual unions via legislative change.

Like it or not, that's the way things work in a democracy [/QUOTE]Mouse, I can't speak for your country, but my views ARE the status quo in my country. I don't have to attempt to change a thing.