Same sex marriages. Your opinion?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]And where do we draw the line? What about good male-male platonic friends? Why should they be discriminated against simply because they don't have sex with each other, yet live together?

The whole idea is not discrimination against homosexuals, but elevates and encourages generic family building. It recognises the foundational value a family is to a society.

Making a hetrosexual marriage work is not easy, yet is vital to a healthy functional society.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]No worries. All is forgiven and in the past brother. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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?

No, Yorick, read again Bardan's post : he proposed what currently exists in France, THAT LEGAL AND RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES BE SEPARATED. That is what his statement of "removing LEGAL value to religious marriage" meant, no more, no less - he explained it quite clearly in his later posts. Let state take care fo state matters, and churches take care of religious matters. Anyone then being FREE of attending state marriage, church marriage, or both, or neither.

What YOU are saying here, Yorick, and confirmed in this post, is confiscating the spiritual value of a marriage to the sole profit of religious marriage. I have been living with my husband for 17 years, married for 13 years, and you make it sound as if we were not 'really' married, as if we didn't make the spiritual commitment that you imply only a religious marriage entails. My own civilian marriage had "social and spiritual and emotional significance", thank you. We didn't marry so I get the family house when Luc dies.

And yes, the reason why a state demands that you attend a ceremony in order to be legally married is because the state gives rights and responsibilities to a married couple, and as such is entitled to ask you to make a gesture showing that you understand that a marriage is an important social committment and accept it. I don't see why it is "dictatorial", it seems pretty logical and fair to me - if you don't want to make a social committment, then don't marry. Marriage without committment is pretty empty anyway.

[ 08-01-2003, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Yorick: And where do we draw the line? What about good male-male platonic friends? Why should they be discriminated against simply because they don't have sex with each other, yet live together? The whole idea is not discrimination against homosexuals, but elevates and encourages generic family building. It recognises the foundational value a family is to a society. Making a hetrosexual marriage work is not easy, yet is vital to a healthy functional society. [/QB]

Well, I would guess that the male-male platonic friends wouldn't have the desire to get married, and no cohabitation law is going to be so phrased as to deem married any couple living tiogether for whatever reason.

And if they did want to get married for some inexplicable reason? That just proves that a civil union would be as open to abuse as a religiously-based one. Plenty of people have married in churches and sworn their vows (consciously lying through their teeth) to enter a marriage of convenience, or for whatever other reason. There are the rules, and then outside of that there is abuse. Don't confuse the two [img]smile.gif[/img]

And again, you're doing the very thing that I am railing against - mixing the legal side and the religoous side.

The idea of a civil marriage does indeed recognise the foundational value of a family. That's what it creates. that it does not fit your idea of the standardised nuclear family is your problem.

The idea of a christian marriage (lets get specific) does indeed discriminate against homosexuals, who simply say "You can't do it."

Separate the two. Allow churches to discriminate against homosexuals as their way of encouraging the family unit they approve of, and allow the civil union to to 'marry' homosexuals and heterosexuals alike as their way of encouraging a family unit that the church does not approve of.

I have no doubt that having a healthy heterosexual marriage in the majority of the population is a way of keeping the society stable and healthy, but I fail to see how denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals can be supported as a viable way of ensuring stable heterosexual marriage. Just because homosexual marriage will be allowed, this will not take young heterosexuals off the street and make them think "Hey! I'll marry a man instead!" It will simply mean people are free from discrimination.

As to your idea of the 'draconian' measures that I stated before, I never said "Remove all legal weight from everything except the civil union ceremony." Rather, I said "Strip everything legal away from the religious ceremonies, and leave them as purely spiritual unions." If some very well phrased cohabitation law was made up in such a manner that it didn't have any of the loopholes (like defining bachelor flatmates married after a period of time), I would be fine with that, as long as it was something that applied equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals.

And don't try and give me rubbish about "This denies people the right to marry under a religious ceremony." It does no such thing. It merely places things in their proper place in the scheme of things. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights, religious people can get married in a church just as they please for their religious ceremony, as long as they also undergo whetever civil process the law requires for them to be legally recognised as married, and also let the churches turn away people they do not want to marry, for whatever reason they choose.

Saying that taking away the legal aspect of a religious marriage makes it impossible for a christian to practise their religion is absurd. You're claiming that there's somehting about your religion that states "Marriages performed by a priest of our religion *must* be recognised as legal marriages by the state, or else it's opression!" It's no such thing - it's common sense. A religious ceremony should be religiously, spiritually significant. Period. A civil union should be legally significant. Period. If a homosexual couple want a religiously significant ceremony, then they can find a church that will authorise it. I'm sure there are any number of them that would, but that are currently prohibited by state or national, religiously influenced law.

EDIT - I must add, above where I said :

A civil union should be legally significant. Period.

I did not mean that people should somehow suppress any spiritual feelings they have while going through the ceremony, or be disallowed from expressing them (or indeed feeling them, if such a thing were possible) - only that the law not involve any language or action within the ceremony that somehow enforces spiritualism through mentions of God, Bhuuda, The Great Wind Spirit, Zuggtmoy the Great Fungus, or whatever. It should also not be based on religious dogma (with which a significant portion of the public disagree) founded in a society far different from the one in which we now live, when it comes to matters of allowing homosexuals to marry. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-01-2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: As to your idea of the 'draconian' measures that I stated before, I never said "Remove all legal weight from everything except the civil union ceremony." Rather, I said "Strip everything legal away from the religious ceremonies, and leave them as purely spiritual unions."

You're missing the point. So to are you Claude The legal element to a ceremony is inclusive within, not preclusive to a religious service. As Mouse has already stated, a civil ceremony is the same. All a couple do, in having a religious ceremony, is INCLUDE the necessary LEGAL elements. Which is pretty much simply signing a piece of paper in front of legal witnesses. The legal ceremony occurs WITHIN the religious OR civil ceremonies.


Two seperate ceremonies already exist if you like. It's just that people choose to combine the two. The legal ceremony is the aforementioned signing of a piece of paper and can be done anywhere, so why not have it at the religious ceremony while their loved ones and family are gathered.

Ministers and preachers are "justices of the peace" like any other morally upstanding citizen without a criminal record can be. Denying them the right to perform such activities as JPs are able would be discrimination on grounds of religion.

What you are advocating Bardan IS religious discrimination.

Criticising the Catholic Church for speaking out about an issue they hold to is also the same. Where are the free speech advocates? What happened to the right of a collection of people to hold like ideas and beliefs? People put themselves UNDER the guidance of a Pastor, preacher or priest. They're not forced. You can always leave the church if you disagree. Millions did. It's called "Protestantism."

I read in the paper today some bozo suggesting the Catholic Church should accept reality instead of trying to fit people into their doctrine.

He kind of missed the whole point of religion and faith. It's an agent of CHANGE. It's a way to TRANSFORM yourself. This nut basically asked the Catholic Church to not be a religion.... huh?

[ 08-01-2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Hmmm. My opinion of same sex marriage is it's icky ... but hell! the gays and lesbians probably think the same of straights. I don't want to discriminate by making laws just because certain people behave differently than me. I say eventually things will change. If there's just one constant in this universe then it's change.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: If a homosexual couple want a religiously significant ceremony, then they can find a church that will authorise it. I'm sure there are any number of them that would, but that are currently prohibited by state or national, religiously influenced law.

Again you've missed the point. There are many churches that could and would conceivably marry two homosexuals. However, the STATE in America doesn't recognise the union. You totally missed the whole concept of legal elements WITHIN a ceremony. The ceremony is all personal choice. The ceremony contains no legal function as is, except for the paper being signed in front of witnesses.

You can, as Mouse stated end up being married with no paper signed or ceremony undergone.

The only elements a ceremony have are spiritual, emotional and social.

I don't see why you aren't seeing this. The point has been made by TIMBER, MOUSE and I. Yet this is why I cried foul. You were advocating removal of peoples personal choices. What you are seeking already exists, but people CHOOSE to combine the two elements/ceremonies, whatever you want to call it.

Forcing people to split to the two is ludicrous and unworkable and an attack on cultures and human rights.

You can have a perfectly legal marriage with a ceremony containing no mention of God if you want Bardan. You're making a song and dance about a nonissue.

Whether homosexuals can or cannot marry is a social issue, not simply a religious one. The Catholic Church is simply the most outspoken about their beliefs. They do have a right to do that however much we may disagree with them. Islamic groups, Jewish groups are also in the same boat. It's a social issue, not just a Christian one.

What do we want our society to be?

How do we encourage parents and families to stay together?

[Chewbacca]

We certainly don't strengthen the family unit by denying gay parents the basic legal rights of "marriage". We actually weaken the idea of a loving family if a gay lifepartner can't visit their loved one in the hospitital because of a legal barrier. We weaken the family's economic status by denying the tax benifits marriage provides. So on and so forth.

[Skunk]

Again you've missed the point. There are many churches that could and would conceivably marry two homosexuals. However, the STATE in America doesn't recognise the union.

Even if homosexual or lesbian couples gain the right to a legal marriage in the US - that still doesn't mean that the union will be recognised *outside* the US.

I'm reminded of a Dutch married homosexual couple in the news not so long ago. They went Italy to work and one had an accident - his husband?/partner? was refused the right to specify the care and treatment of his 'other' and instead the hospital waited for the 'real' relatives to contact them and make the decisions.

Had the couple not torn up (as part of their marriage celebrations) the legal papers that they had previously drawn up (before homosexual marriages were legalised in the Netherlands), the partner of the injured person would not have had any problems...

So even if homosexual/lesbian marriages were to be legalised in the US, those couples might still have to go to lawyer if they want to travel abroad.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: We certainly don't strengthen the family unit by denying gay parents the basic legal rights of "marriage". We actually weaken the idea of a loving family if a gay lifepartner can't visit their loved one in the hospitital because of a legal barrier. We weaken the family's economic status by denying the tax benifits marriage provides. So on and so forth.

Well, most opponents of homosexual/lesbian marriages are against the parenting of children by non-heterosexual couples on the grounds that it would 'seriously damage' the child's development. So denying such couples the right to marry is not considered to be against the child's interests since the child shouldn't be there in the first place and marriage might be used as a tool to put more children 'in danger'.

Speaking from a personal perspective, I believe that a child's development is best served when one of the parents is of the opposing sex. If I was in charge of custody, my order of preference of where the child would go would be:

1. Both biological heterosexual parents
2. One biological parent in a stable in heterosexual relationship.
3. Single biological heterosexual parent not in relationship
4. Biological parent in a stable non-heterosexual relationship
5. Single biological non-heterosexual parent not in relationship
6. Adoptive/Foster heterosexual parents
7. Adoptive/Foster non-heterosexual parents
8. State care

[ 08-02-2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: We actually weaken the idea of a loving family if a gay lifepartner can't visit their loved one in the hospitital because of a legal barrier.

Very true.