Same sex marriages. Your opinion?

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Yorick: Bardan, I think you have a serious misconception about marriages, ceremonies and legal union. From your response I thought things must have been different in Britain, but Mouse has posted otherwise. Check the above posts for details.

Yes, but the whole problem is this - the civil union Donut is referring to is *not* available to homosexuals here (yet) or in America (in most places), but for what reasons? For religiously-based reasons, that should have no place in a civil union. My discussion of the religious ceremony itself is simply an example of the lengths I think we should go to to divorce the two. Remove *all* legal aspects, including the signing of the civll union document, from the religious ceremony, and force it to be a separate event.

In Australia, does the totally non-religious ceremony oof Civil Union extend to homosexuals? If so, then go Australia. I have no beef with you as a progressive nation

What I have here is not a beef with the whole world, neither with the concept of a 'religious marriage'. There are progressive nations that are now affording the same rights to homosexuals to 'marry' as to straight people. My complaint is the backwardd nations/states that do not, and they mostly do not because of religious reasons.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Oops, I forgot to say :

Remember, this thread is about "Should homosexuals be allowed to marry" - not "Should religious marriage mean more than/less than/be distinct from civil union." My proposal that the two should be totally separate - ie. No legal aspect *at all* (including restriction) to the religious ceremony, and no religious aspect *at all* to the civil ceremony (including banning homosexuals) - was simply a proposal to fix the problem, not the point of the thread itself.

[ 08-01-2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: Oops, I forgot to say : Remember, this thread is about "Should homosexuals be allowed to marry" - not "Should religious marriage mean more than/less than/be distinct from civil union." My proposal that the two should be totally separate - ie. No legal aspect *at all* (including restriction) to the religious ceremony, and no religious aspect *at all* to the civil ceremony (including banning homosexuals) - was simply a proposal to fix the problem, not the point of the thread itself.

Exactly. Go back to page one and check. The fact that "Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?" is two distinct questions (1 legal, 1 spiritual) is exactly why I broke my first answer into two enumerated parts.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: Oops, I forgot to say : Remember, this thread is about "Should homosexuals be allowed to marry" - not "Should religious marriage mean more than/less than/be distinct from civil union." My proposal that the two should be totally separate - ie. No legal aspect *at all* (including restriction) to the religious ceremony, and no religious aspect *at all* to the civil ceremony (including banning homosexuals) - was simply a proposal to fix the problem, not the point of the thread itself.

Exactly. Go back to page one and check. The fact that "Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?" is two distinct questions (1 legal, 1 spiritual) is exactly why I broke my first answer into two enumerated parts. [/QUOTE]I'm just not mentally organised enough to do something so sensible

[Mouse]

Actually, I think the original question should have been along the lines of "Should same sex couples be given the same legal rights as heterosexual couples if they commit to a legally binding statutory union?"

Or something similar

P.S. If you want to see how a completely different forum handles this debate, have a look here. BTW, this is not advertising in opposition to IW, but it certainly shows some different opinions

[ 08-01-2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Mouse: Actually, I think the original question should have been along the lines of "Should same sex couples be given the same legal rights as heterosexual couples if they commit to a legally binding statutory union?" Or something similar P.S. If you want to see how a completely different forum handles this debate, have a look here. BTW, this is not advertising in opposition to IW, but it certainly shows some different opinions

I'm sorry Mouse. I'll try to better phrase the question next time. First, I'll have to raise the money for my Harvard education, so it may be a while.

Bear with me.

[Moiraine]

Uh, Yorick ? Ow. I don't know exactly what is the marriage system in the US or in Australia, but in France, it is pretty much as Bardan described. You have a civilian marriage, that makes you married in the eye of the law and gives you the legal rights thereof : property sharing, raising authority on children, ... And you can additionally have a religious ceremony that gives you whatever spiritual rights your church's mariage entails. In other words, the civilian marriage has a legal value , the religious mariage has a religious value. If you want both the benefits, you have to go for both ceremonies, just as you both belong both to a secular country AND to a church. Where is the "removal of religious freedom" in that ? What better than the separation of state and church can guarantee freedom for ALL people ? What freedom would be left if priests were to have the responsibility of allowing or denying secular legal state rights according to their own religious beliefs ?

[Mouse]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: Actually, I think the original question should have been along the lines of "Should same sex couples be given the same legal rights as heterosexual couples if they commit to a legally binding statutory union?" Or something similar P.S. If you want to see how a completely different forum handles this debate, have a look here. BTW, this is not advertising in opposition to IW, but it certainly shows some different opinions

I'm sorry Mouse. I'll try to better phrase the question next time. First, I'll have to raise the money for my Harvard education, so it may be a while.

Bear with me. [/QUOTE]You don't neeed a Harvard education - University of Aberdeen did fine for me. I believe they do a fine exchange programme. Apply, get accepted, hop over to God's own country and I'll buy you a pint

P.S. Moiraine, you have put my views far more succinctly than I have.

[ 08-01-2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Yorick: *Hands John D. the rapier of Twain*

Thank you Yorick. While I have your ear ... er ... eye, I wish to apologize for the last time I conversed with you. I did not handle it in a manner worthy of our calling, it should have been handled privately in PM or email instead of publicly.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Uh, Yorick ? Ow. I don't know exactly what is the marriage system in the US or in Australia, but in France, it is pretty much as Bardan described. You have a civilian marriage, that makes you married in the eye of the law and gives you the legal rights thereof : property sharing, raising authority on children, ... And you can additionally have a religious ceremony that gives you whatever spiritual rights your church's mariage entails. In other words, the civilian marriage has a legal value , the religious mariage has a religious value. If you want both the benefits, you have to go for both ceremonies, just as you both belong both to a secular country AND to a church. Where is the "removal of religious freedom" in that ? What better than the separation of state and church can guarantee freedom for ALL people ? What freedom would be left if priests were to have the responsibility of allowing or denying secular legal state rights according to their own religious beliefs ?

If a priest refuses to marry a couple, they can go elsewhere. If an entire religious movement refuses, they can go elsewhere. As has been said, the ceremony has no legal value whatsoever. The ceremony has social and spiritual and emotional significance. That is all.

A religion refusing a couple doesn't prevent a couple from getting married per se. What Bardan propsed is removing the religions right to marry someone. Even though as it is now, a nonreligious person is not refused the right to marry someone. It removes choice from the equation.

Given that a couple can be married without a ceremony I fail to see what the issue is. A couple that felt strongly enough could, under Bardans system circumvent it and not have a civil ceremony, having only a religious ceremony instead - and in a year be recognised as legally married.

What's the hoohar? Bardans attitude is draconian. "Attend this ceremony or you're not legally married". That's not how it is now regarding religious ceremonies or ceremonies at all. Why get all dictatorial about it?

[ 08-01-2003, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]