Initiative 957...No kids? No marriage!

[wellard]

Originally posted by robertthebard: I don't think it's my place to inflict my world view on others. I'm anti-abortion, but Pro-Choice for much the same reason. I'm not the one that has to live with that decision. What gives me the right to try and claim the moral high ground and condemn somebody else for choosing to do something different than what I do? A lot of people here do things a lot differently than I do. I don't hold it against anyone, that's just the way it is.

VOTE 1 RTB [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

What a better world we would all live in if more people thought this way. nice post Rob [img]smile.gif[/img]

[robertthebard]

:bow: ... [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] I just really think it's a shame that some people feel the need to inflict their narrow mindedness on everybody else. I have a little sticker on the windshield of my bike that says "Why do people with closed minds have open mouths". Pretty much sums it up for me. The most close minded people are right there trying to deny somebody else's right to the same quality of life because they are different. Different religion? What makes you think you should have the same rights I do? Grrrr. I could go on and on about this. Somebody stop me...

Oh, since I got one vote, I'm going to run for President of the World. I don't want to be just the pres of the US, that job has a bad rap right now...

[Bungleau]

Illumina... As I read the NJ statute, it read that the union of a heterosexual couple is a marriage (in the eyes of the state), and the union of a homosexual couple is a civil union. The distinction in my mind is that neither one has to be blessed or performed by a religious institution, although religious institutions are empowered to do so.

I'll vote for RTB for POtW too... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[robertthebard]

WOOT, two votes...

[SpiritWarrior]

What ever happend to the high court determining that denial of these rights was basically unconstitutional and then giving an ultimatum to legislators to come up with a solution within a few months? I remember it was on the news quite a bit but it died off? It wasn't marriage I don't think but IIRC they said they need something (such as civil unions). Did it ever come to pass? Or was that the Mass. thing where it is legal for two men or two women to marry? Sorry, i'm a little out of the loop with it since it faded from the headlines. It was almost as if it vanished.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

They did that in New Jersey, with the result being what you see here. I don't think anything like that ever happened on a larger scale, if that's what you're asking.

[/)eathKiller]

Personally I like Cuba's handling of the situation. Anyone can get married. It's only a religious institution and doesn't mean anything else at all. If two people of the same gender religiously support getting married by their own belief system then they're totally allowed to do so.

Many people seem to forget that Gay Christians believe in all the same things as straight Christians with regard to love, relationships, and being in a dedicated Marriage.

@ Bungleau, I'd like to hear your reasoning on explaining how the proverbial glass is broken in the first place. Are you saying a same-sex relationship is like something broken compared to a heterosexual relationship which remains whole?

If I was in charge of the world I'd ensure people who voice such opinions are given therapy or at least sensitivity training. Calling love between two people as something different form any other two people's love is one thing: Inequality.

Let's consider the civil union argument in greater depth: Imagine what would happen if any group that ever faced adversity decided to have a "separate but equal" institution because of social and religeous opposition.

Women, you are no longer able to vote. You can however "Suggest" your favorite candidates. It's like voting but it's not called voting for the sake of social and religious reasons.

Black people, you're now able to have duties and obligations. They're kind of like paying jobs but we don't want to equate you to white people's jobs for social and religious reasons.

I hope you see my point.

If Conservatives really are going to argue that marriage exists only to further procreation then procreation should be banned outside of marriage or marriage should be banned without procreation. Cuba has handled this situation by supporting free abortions available to anyone all the time. Thus, no one gets pregnant unless they're married. As an added "bonus" it makes it very difficult for gay people to adopt should they want to, which is another thing I'm sure conservatives would love to see happen.

[Bungleau]

I'm not sure which comment of mine you're referring to, DK, but if it's the bit on the first page about the joining happening at the same time and the breaking not happening at the same time....

what I was referring to is that when one is married, often the religious and civil aspects take place at the same time. The church recognizes the marriage, the state recognizes the marriage, and you get to have a honeymoon.

When the honeymoon's over, however, and you decide that the two of you don't want to be married anymore, the divorce happens quickly on the civil side, rendering the marriage over. It does not, in my second-hand experience (from my parents who divorced when I was three), happen quickly on the religious side. The Catholic church, at least, doesn't recognize divorce, but only annulment. And for that, you have to go to a church court (essentially) and prove how the marriage was a rotten and lousy idea to begin with, and how the two of you should never have been allowed to be together in the first place. If you win, the church says the marriage never happened. You get to keep the gifts, and I don't recall how they exactly deal with the issue of children from this marriage that never existed

Leastways, that's what happened for my parents when my mom went to annul her marriage.

So I wasn't referring to a heterosexual marriage/union being any different from a homosexual marriage/union. If it's not clear, I'm a supporter of gay marriage rights.

[robertthebard]

To make this even clearer from my perspective, I'm not. I don't think it should matter if the person is gender specific, race specific, or has too many fingers on one hand. Equal rights should mean equal rights, and there should be no qualifiers. This little passage from a much quoted book does not say "Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they are different from you". I believe that the point to the passage is that people are going to be different than you, and you should treat them the way you want to be treated.

If you want to ban gay marriage, ban all marriage. Let's be fair about it. I liked DK's point about voting. After all, it's much the same thing. I think then that this breaks down to this;
If all people are created equal, why do some people have more rights than others? No matter how you break it down, banning gay marriage gives one set of people more rights than another set.

[Mouse]

Easy solution - have a "marriage" in the religious tradition of your choice. Then you can call yourself married.

However.........

If you don't also complete the civil formalities, you get none of the civil benefits of the union.

Civil "marriage" therefore is no problem, likewise civil partnerships just so long as you complete the aforementioned formalities.

If those of a religious persuasion want to make procreation a prerequisite of their religious ceremony, more power to them. Just don't impose it on the rest of us.