Looks like another shift to the right!

[Night Stalker]

There is no reason to disagree with libretarians on the issue Att. You are right. Marriage is a religeous compact. Therefore, to complete separtation of church and state, the legal concept of marriage should be dropped. That way, all people, gay, straight, purple have the same legal rights that TL mentioned. Should people want to continue their religeous beliefs and get married under God, Allah, or Ao .... they can, and everyone's liberty is still preserved.

I mean, realistically, what makes a marriage any different than any other long-term committed relationship - legal overhead.

[pritchke]

And, if the argument is that being gay is fine but allowing gays to marry isn't, then that too has HUGE flaws. Gay marriages are allowed, they just aren't recognized under the law. So, it's not the symbolic act of marrying that's prohibited, it is the HUGE amount of legal benefits that come with marriage that gays are cut off from. Things like co-parent rights, medical benefits, inheritence rights, hospital rights.

While I agree that Gay couples should have the same legal benefits that come with marriage, or common-law couples I don't think they require marriage to receive those benefits. If a justice of the peace wants to marry a gay couple fine however I don't think government should be forcing religions to marry or recognize gay couples. Why can't they have their own legal term to recognize their legal benefits and rights as opposed to marriage the same as common-law relationships do (Common-law relationship in Canada have the same rights and benifits as married couples, I assume it the same south of the border).

[ 05-16-2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Spelca]

Ahh, I tried to post but it didn't work... I hope it won't go double now.

Anyway, I was just wondering whether you have something called "civil wedding" or something similar. In Slovenia you can't get married just in a church, you also have to get married in front of an offical, sign the papers and everything. So if you want to get married religiously (and that it's still official) you'd have to get married twice; once legally and once in a church (whichever god you worship). Though gays can't get married yet, I don't see a problem why they shouldn't be able to get married legally. If the church doesn't want to wed them, then they don't have to. But they could still get married in front of an offical and that way get the benefits all other married couples do. It's not like the Church would lose anything by that... [img]smile.gif[/img]

A couple of thoughts on the discussion between Attalus and Timber.

1. The assertion TL made the thoughts about homosexuality discrimination being analogous to Racial discrimination..this is not accurate. One is discriminating against behaviour and the other is discrimination against race...one chosen one not....yeah yeah I know there is a lot of debate about Homosexuality being genetic or not...but there is so far no definitive medical evidence either way. The people advocating gay rights will say its genetic and not a choice...a biased position statement..and those opposed to it will say the opposite again a biased stance....so Im left trying to find objective scientists with no bias...and so far..they are undecided.

2. Society aka the Government give preferential to heterosexual unions over homeosexual and or single people because the hetero union contributes more to the societys continuance than does either of the other two catagorys. Hetero unions result in new baby tax payers ensuring the continuance of the tax base...No way a homosexual union or single people will increase the tax base unless they perform in a hetero manner.

3. I think a society should be able to decides what actions they will sanction and condone....however...I think what goes on in the bedroom of consenting adults is their business and the government really shouldnt be regulating it.


Well that is my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by MagiK: 2. Society aka the Government give preferential to heterosexual unions over homeosexual and or single people because the hetero union contributes more to the societys continuance than does either of the other two catagorys. Hetero unions result in new baby tax payers ensuring the continuance of the tax base...No way a homosexual union or single people will increase the tax base unless they perform in a hetero manner.

Just a comment on this - if the reason to favour heterosexual marriages over homosexual ones is primarily because the union will result in children, then why should elderly people be allowed to get married? If you have two 80 year olds, they are even less likely than a homosexual couple to have children (a lesbian couple for instance could use donor sperm), and yet they receive the same legal benefits as a young couple who are planning to have a passel of kids. Similarly a young couple who never plan to have children, suppose they have had a vasectomy/hysterectomy?

[/)eathKiller]

Anagrams eh?

*thinks*

as in to say:

Rallying
Economic
People
Under
Blind
Leadership
In
Congress
And
National interests

eh?

oh well could be worse...

Deranged
Enigmatic
Maternal
Overbearing
Charismatic
Realistic
All-Liberal
Treaty-writers

My vote goes for the

General
Recovering
Environmental
Etriological
Neutral
Pallatable
Anti-
Radioactive [and]
Toxic
Yokels

[skywalker]

Originally posted by MagiK: 2. Society aka the Government give preferential to heterosexual unions over homeosexual and or single people because the hetero union contributes more to the societys continuance than does either of the other two catagorys. Hetero unions result in new baby tax payers ensuring the continuance of the tax base...No way a homosexual union or single people will increase the tax base unless they perform in a hetero manner.

I guess my wife and I are undermining the whole process. We got married with no intention of ever having children. We must be subversives,.

Mark

[Donut]

The Onion! I don't think so!

[IronDragon]

Originally posted by Attalus

Sorry, TL, but that is where I part company from the libertarians. I, and those that believe with me, regard marriage as a religious and sacred covenant, whatever the beliefs of the people involved.

Originally posted by pritchke

If a justice of the peace wants to marry a gay couple fine however I don't think government should be forcing religions to marry or recognize gay couples.

Fortunately there are religions that do not discriminate.

The question then becomes if a particular religion does not discriminate against gay couples why should the government continue to follow the demands of those religions organizations that do continue to discriminate.

Originally posted by MagiK

The assertion TL made the thoughts about homosexuality discrimination being analogous to Racial discrimination..this is not accurate. One is discriminating against behaviour and the other is discrimination against race...one chosen one not....yeah yeah I know there is a lot of debate about Homosexuality being genetic or not...but there is so far no definitive medical evidence either way. The people advocating gay rights will say its genetic and not a choice...a biased position statement..and those opposed to it will say the opposite again a biased stance....so Im left trying to find objective scientists with no bias...and so far..they are undecided.

This is much like saying that discrimination against religious minorities is just fine because religion is a choice. Those Jews in Europe in the early 1930’s have no reason to complain, they chose to become Jewish and they chose to remain Jewish so their persecution is their entire fault.

Just as a note the gay community would rather it not be found that homosexuality is genetically determined. This is largely due to the fear that if this is found to be the case then the conservative christen faction will begin advocating pre-natal testing and abortions for any unborn babies found to be gay.

Originally posted by MagiK

Society aka the Government give preferential to heterosexual unions over homeosexual and or single people because the hetero union contributes more to the societys continuance than does either of the other two catagorys. Hetero unions result in new baby tax payers ensuring the continuance of the tax base...No way a homosexual union or single people will increase the tax base unless they perform in a hetero manner.

This fall I wil be attending the (heterosexual)wedding of a good friend who in her early 20’s was diagnosed with ovarian cnacer. Seven years in remission she is ready to settle down. However she will never be able to have children. By your logic she should not be allowed to marry as this union will not “contribute” to society.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by MagiK: 2. Society aka the Government give preferential to heterosexual unions over homeosexual and or single people because the hetero union contributes more to the societys continuance than does either of the other two catagorys. Hetero unions result in new baby tax payers ensuring the continuance of the tax base...No way a homosexual union or single people will increase the tax base unless they perform in a hetero manner.

The only fitting reply I can think of to this is ...........


Bollocks!