Cable Forum
Page 3 of 5 12 3 45
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   In Defense of the Marriage (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=7273)

Russ 08-02-2004 10:39
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
My wife and I were married in a registry office because we didn't feel that we should marry in a church because we had been 'living in sin' for 6 years (and neither of us is 'religious').
Because of this Russ says that we aren't properly married (or words to that effect). We agree. In the eyes of God, we aren't properly married. We see no insult in this. I don't see what the fuss is about.
Your domestic circumstances are of course nothing to do with me but if you would permit me to comment......obviously I'd prefer it if people were married in the eyes of God but if they (you?) have chosen not to, then that's between you and God and no-one else.

Maggy 08-02-2004 12:58
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
My wife and I were married in a registry office because we didn't feel that we should marry in a church because we had been 'living in sin' for 6 years (and neither of us is 'religious').
Because of this Russ says that we aren't properly married (or words to that effect). We agree. In the eyes of God, we aren't properly married. We see no insult in this. I don't see what the fuss is about.
Ditto.I also as an athiest thought it a tad hypocritical to get married in church,unlike many of my contempories many of whom professed a Christian belief but after the ceremony never,ever went back to church,except to christen their children.Christianity has to be more than getting married in church surely?

And Graham I'm sick of your arguing.I never started this argument with you.I merely pointed out that Russ had a right to his opinion and you then turned your attentions to me.I wasn't defending his beliefs just his right to hold them and requesting that you and the rest accept that.If you can't then I can only say you are a hypocrite yourself as you so often argue for us to see both sides equally and fairly.As you see I'm not attacking your right to your beliefs just the way you won't extend that right to others.You are so like erol and just won't accept that you can't change people's minds just by nagging them.Sometimes you CAN just walk away.If you can't stand what some of us have to say and can't respect our right to say them then maybe putting us on ignore may be your only answer. :rolleyes:

Me,I just gave up reading whatever you have to say because it's too boring to read through your overlong long postings.

Incog. :PP:

Graham 09-02-2004 23:27
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
No I didn't say that. I did not say I object to marriages from any church I don't agree with, I'm saying I don't accept civil ceremonies as marriage, or any other ceremony considered as marriage which does not include what I feel 'qualifies' as true marriage.
I'm sorry, but the distinction between the two seems like a rather fine hair to split IMO.

And as to what a "true marriage" is, well, I've spoken before on my opinions of people who hold to a "one true way" mentality.

Quote:
Quote:
You object to others saying "You're wrong!" yet what you are doing, no matter how politely you care to phrase it, is saying that "we're the only ones who are entitled to call it marriage because we're the only ones doing it right!"
If I was saying it as confrontational as that then you may have a point.
But you've just said "I don't accept civil ceremonies as marriage, or any other ceremony considered as marriage which does not include what I feel 'qualifies' as true marriage."[/QUOTE]

Now it may be prettied up a bit, but as far as I can see that simply boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong. Full stop".

Quote:
If you want to complain about a particular person, please have the good manners, not to mention the courage, to name names.

Quote:
Believe me Graham, I will name names. I don't fear you in any way and if I have something to say about directly, you can be sure I will say to you.
Well thank you, I'm please to hear it. So I can not only hope, but now *expect* not to see any other vague generalisations from you about, for instance, "something that certain people don't like doing" in future posts?

Graham 09-02-2004 23:39
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incognitas
And Graham I'm sick of your arguing.I never started this argument with you.I merely pointed out that Russ had a right to his opinion and you then turned your attentions to me.
No, you made a sweeping generalisation which I took exception too. Then, when I pulled you up on it, you seem to decide to resort to outrage and bluster instead of reason.

Quote:
I wasn't defending his beliefs just his right to hold them and requesting that you and the rest accept that.
If you *had* done that, I wouldn't have objected. The fact that you chose to couch it in terms such as " everyone seems to personalise these errr..... discussions (sometimes tirades) down to attacking Russ" was what I objected to, which, you might have realised had you actually bothered to read my response instead of "just giving up reading whatever you have to say because it's too boring to read through your overlong long postings."

Quote:
If you can't then I can only say you are a hypocrite yourself as you so often argue for us to see both sides equally and fairly.
Were I to have actually done so, then you would have been right to call me a hypocrite, however since that is something I assiduously attempt to avoid doing, I cannot accept the appelation. (Alliteration actually unintentional!)

Quote:
You are so like erol and just won't accept that you can't change people's minds just by nagging them.
Off hand I can't say I know who erol is and, frankly, I don't care who he or she is because I am *not* erol, I do not speak for him/ her, nor does he/she speak for me.

I write my own posts, based on my own opinions. I do not attempt to "change people's minds just by nagging at them" I attempt to do so by pointing out logical flaws in their arguments or assumptions.

If you can't accept that...

Quote:
Sometimes you CAN just walk away.
And if anyone doesn't like what I have to say about their postings, then *they* can walk away. But I'm not going to stop posting because of that.

Quote:
Me,I just gave up reading whatever you have to say because it's too boring to read through your overlong long postings.
I'm sure, then that you haven't bothered to read down this far, but that's not my problem.

dr wadd 09-02-2004 23:41
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
As luck would have it I stumbled across this story in an old magazine I was reading today. Here is the link to the coverage on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/18/gay.vulture.parents/

Ramrod 09-02-2004 23:43
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
Your domestic circumstances are of course nothing to do with me but if you would permit me to comment......obviously I'd prefer it if people were married in the eyes of God but if they (you?) have chosen not to, then that's between you and God and no-one else.
We would have liked a 'traditional' wedding but thought it would be a bit hypocritical.

Ramrod 09-02-2004 23:45
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
As luck would have it I stumbled across this story in an old magazine I was reading today. Here is the link to the coverage on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/18/gay.vulture.parents/
Good story but 'one swallow does not a summer make'

Xaccers 09-02-2004 23:49
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Bugger, I thought this thread was about Britney so I've ignored it, now I'm kicking myself.

Anyway, homosexual organisations in this country who are asking for equal rights for homosexual relationships as married releationships do not, I repeat do not, want marriage for homosexuals.
They acknowledge that marriage is something special and within the realm of hetrosexuals.
What homosexuals want is a legally acknowledged union which gives them the legal rights which married partners enjoy, such as next of kin, and inheritance rights.

While this sensible discussion was going on, some other hetrosexual people (mainly women for an understandable reason) wanted there to be automatic legal rights for hetrosexual couples who have been together for a certain period of time. This was to protect the woman, should she be dating a guy for 10 years, then have him kick her out. She would have no rights over his property etc (remember, law doesn't recognise common law wives)
This is the bit I found strange, in that hetrosexuals have the ability already to claim legal rights via registry office weddings.

Ramrod 09-02-2004 23:50
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
And as to what a "true marriage" is, well, I've spoken before on my opinions of people who hold to a "one true way" mentality.
Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony. Can't you see how a 'purist' would view newcomers, like civil ceremonies? It's not a 'one true way', rather the original, as it was intended, how it all started 'way'. Why should it be watered down to cater for governments and homosexuals?

dr wadd 09-02-2004 23:56
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Why should it be watered down to cater for governments and homosexuals?
Not all Christians in this country adhere to all of the teachings of the bible. They already "water down", as you put it, certain aspects of the bible that suit their purposes, the issues that aren`t hard to face up to. But as soon as it becomes an issue that forces them to confront their prejudices they suddenly decide to follow the rules.

danielf 09-02-2004 23:58
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
As luck would have it I stumbled across this story in an old magazine I was reading today. Here is the link to the coverage on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/18/gay.vulture.parents/
Interesting story. Caring homosexual parents save the species... Let's hope the chicks they raised don't derail vulture society ;)

Xaccers 10-02-2004 00:03
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Since when did religion have sole authority over marriage?
There are plenty of cultures where marriage is just a unity between two people and not religious

dr wadd 10-02-2004 00:08
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Since when did christians have sole authority over marriage?
There are plenty of cultures where marriage is just a unity between two people and not religious
In the context of the UK, Christians will have the majority control over marriage as the politicians will be too scared to lose their vote, despite this supposedly being a secular country.

Graham 10-02-2004 00:09
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony.
No, *one* form of marriage is a religious ceremony.

Quote:
Can't you see how a 'purist' would view newcomers, like civil ceremonies? It's not a 'one true way',
I was commenting on Russ' point of view.

Quote:
rather the original, as it was intended, how it all started 'way'.
Really? Care to back that claim up with any cites? Is it true for *every* culture in *every* country in the world?

Quote:
Why should it be watered down to cater for governments and homosexuals?
Why is there always this attitude that allowing gays a legally binding union is somehow "watering down" marriage? How is it going to make "straight" marriages weaker?

Xaccers 10-02-2004 00:11
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
In the context of the UK, Christians will have the majority control over marriage as the politicians will be too scared to lose their vote, despite this supposedly being a secular country.

Sorry, I went back and changed "christians" to "religion"

danielf 10-02-2004 00:11
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony. Can't you see how a 'purist' would view newcomers, like civil ceremonies? It's not a 'one true way', rather the original, as it was intended, how it all started 'way'. Why should it be watered down to cater for governments and homosexuals?
I do hope you are being cynical... Why should marriage be restricted to religion? Because that's the way it started? An alternative way of saying that would be to use the word archaic...

Some people find it important to make a vow to each other, as a formal sign to their partner/ surroundings. Where you do that is up to the people in question. If you're religious, it's your church, if you're not it's city hall (or wherever). Neither one of them is better than the other, and to imply that one of them is better is insulting to the other IMO.

dr wadd 10-02-2004 00:23
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Sorry, I went back and changed "christians" to "religion"
I think my argument still is true, as in this country it is certainly the Christian vote that is foremost on the minds of a very large number of our politicians.

If, as you argue, religion doesn`t have the sole authority over marriage, then that only leaves prejudice as a reason to deny a section of the population the same rights that another section of the population enjoys. At the end of the day the issue essentially boils down to something as trivial as gender. As a society we do not tolerate this sort of discrimination on something as trivial as skin colour (although I do wonder these days).

Xaccers 10-02-2004 00:26
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
I think my argument still is true, as in this country it is certainly the Christian vote that is foremost on the minds of a very large number of our politicians.

If, as you argue, religion doesn`t have the sole authority over marriage, then that only leaves prejudice as a reason to deny a section of the population the same rights that another section of the population enjoys. At the end of the day the issue essentially boils down to something as trivial as gender. As a society we do not tolerate this sort of discrimination on something as trivial as skin colour (although I do wonder these days).
Surely it can only be prejudice to not extend the legal rights of partnership to homosexual partners?

philip.j.fry 10-02-2004 00:27
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony.
To you, yes, but in the grand scheme of things I would disagree and say that marriage is something that is cultural. Just about every single culture that has existed or exists today has a form of marriage ceremony. Take the UK for example, the majority marriage type is Christian, because for the last 1000+ years, we have been a christian country. Before that though, before the Romans brought christianity to Britain, people were still married. I don't know enough about it to say whether it was a strictly religious affair or not (the pagan beliefs are quite complicated).

I've found a cultural anthropology book on my shelf which has a large section on marriage, which it defines to be a union between a man and a woman, the purpose of which is to control sexual activity and provide a channel for things like inheritance in law. Two points quickly, it says a man and a woman, it does not say one, so a man or woman can have multiple marriiages. The second point, it says that gender is not the same as sex, i.e. if two-women are married, one of them is decalred to be male in gender., It has a section on same-sex marriages, which although not overly common, are reasonably frequent in Africa.

These aren't the points I wish to be debating, since I've said all about that further (waayyyyy) back in the thread. I'm just trying to get across that there are many different reasons and explanations of marriage, that I think it completely impossible and unfair to restrict it to one specific type. Need to think of new words, like chirraige :)
Danielf has made the very good point, that to imply that one particular type is more important than another is quite insulting.


Thought this thread was dead :) still, at least it wasn't a waste me getting my book down off of the shelf now :D

dr wadd 10-02-2004 00:30
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Surely it can only be prejudice to not extend the legal rights of partnership to homosexual partners?
Your question has me confused. I`m arguing that those rights *should* be extended to homosexual couples.

philip.j.fry 10-02-2004 00:30
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Surely it can only be prejudice to not extend the legal rights of partnership to homosexual partners?
Yes, it is if there are no strong and valid reasons for not extending the rights.

Ramrod 10-02-2004 00:30
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
I understand where you are all 'coming from'. But...
Allowing gay marriages will not water down hetrosexual marriages, it will water down 'religious' marriages since religions usually see homosexuality as a sin.
I think marriage in most, if not all cultures was originally ( and probably still)entwined with religion. So what if there are a few cultures that marry outside religion, we are talking about our culture and it's roots. Anyway, why shouldn't marriage be restricted to religion? Whats wrong with that?
In this case Russ is a purist.

Ramrod 10-02-2004 00:34
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
Before that though, before the Romans brought christianity to Britain, people were still married. I don't know enough about it to say whether it was a strictly religious affair or not (the pagan beliefs are quite complicated)
I have been to pagan weddings, they are just as religious as christian weddings. (at least the ones I went to were)

Ramrod 10-02-2004 00:37
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
Danielf has made the very good point, that to imply that one particular type is more important than another is quite insulting.
I am not saying that one is more important than another, just that 'religious' marriage should be left to the church.

Xaccers 10-02-2004 00:40
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
Your question has me confused. I`m arguing that those rights *should* be extended to homosexual couples.
Gotcha :)

Ramrod, homosexuals (in this country at least) are not asking for gay marriages much to the annoyance of the Today programme on radio 4 :D
They got on a gay rights activist and a Tory MP hoping to have a slanging match and were rather cheesed off when both totally agreed that gays should have the same legal rights as married couples but gays shouldn't have marriage. It was wonderful to hear the presenter flounder :D

philip.j.fry 10-02-2004 00:41
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
I understand where you are all 'coming from'. But...
Allowing gay marriages will not water down hetrosexual marriages, it will water down 'religious' marriages since religions usually see homosexuality as a sin.
I think marriage in most, if not all cultures was originally ( and probably still)entwined with religion. So what if there are a few cultures that marry outside religion, we are talking about our culture and it's roots. Anyway, why shouldn't marriage be restricted to religion? Whats wrong with that?
In this case Russ is a purist.
I can't see how it can water down religious marriages though, because surely the people who are not allowed to/choose not to marry in a religious ceremony will not whether they have an alternative or not. It's not going to cause huge hoards of people rushing out of the churches to get married elsewhere.

I can see what you're saying about most marriages being intertwined with religion, but this is because society is intertwined with religion, but over time the nature of the religion changes. I.e the shift from paganism to christianity in the past. So if society is shifting, or sections of it are, towards diversity of religion then surely the rest of the culture, including marriage should be allowed forward also. Or should we just have stuck with paganism, or whatever its precursor was (in the UK, insert applicable local arguments here otherwise :) )

The problem I would have about restricting marriage to religion only is that it is an unfair judgement on people who do not accept any one religion. Also, where do you stop, do you allow all religions to have marriage, or just specific ones? (not aimed at you Ramrod, just general question :) )

Julian 10-02-2004 00:44
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
OK, if "unmarried" homosexual couples were granted ALL the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples, would they still want to go through the current marriage ceremony? If so what for?

Surely the answer would be to get round the legal mumbo jumbo as far as pension rights etc. are concerned and have a "marriage" ceremony that homosexual couples could enjoy.

And then leave the existing infrastructure in place for heterosexual couples. :)

philip.j.fry 10-02-2004 00:50
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
I have been to pagan weddings, they are just as religious as christian weddings. (at least the ones I went to were)
As I said, I don't know enough about it to comment. I almost begs the question though, what is religion, is it a set of beliefs? Then if any couple are marrying according to their beliefs, aren't they also undergoing a religious ceremony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
I am not saying that one is more important than another, just that 'religious' marriage should be left to the church
Sory, you've been just using the word marriage so I've become a little confused. I didn't know that you meant religious marriages. I agree with you, if a specific religion decides not to marry a specific group of people, that is that religions right. Religious marriage can quite happily be left to religions. But marriage in general should be open to anybody. I.e, I think any couple should be able to get the civil union, then they should be able to have a private ceremony of their choosing (if they wish) and that will be their actual marriage. This is how I see my potential future marriage.

Xaccers 10-02-2004 00:53
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
OK, if "unmarried" homosexual couples were granted ALL the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples, would they still want to go through the current marriage ceremony? If so what for?

Surely the answer would be to get round the legal mumbo jumbo as far as pension rights etc. are concerned and have a "marriage" ceremony that homosexual couples could enjoy.

And then leave the existing infrastructure in place for heterosexual couples. :)
They just want to be able to register their partnership.
No cerimony, no marriage type thing, just a legal acknowledgment of their partnership :)

danielf 10-02-2004 00:54
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
I am not saying that one is more important than another, just that 'religious' marriage should be left to the church.
Yes, but that's a bit of a non-statement isn't it? I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that a church which believes in a book that says homosexuality is bad should allow homosexuals in their religious marriage (yet).

Also, your 'watering down' statement does give the impression that you do find religious marriage more meaningful than other types.

Russ 10-02-2004 00:56
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
I wonder if I'd be permitted to make similar insulting comments about non-believers as has been made about Christians in this thread? Not that I'd want to, but it would be interesting to see how many people reported me.

danielf 10-02-2004 01:04
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
OK, if "unmarried" homosexual couples were granted ALL the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples, would they still want to go through the current marriage ceremony? If so what for?

My guess would be to have made their vows to each other in public. To make it 'official' much like heterosexual couples do. (My girlfriend has managed to make me agree to getting married this year. We have been together for about 8 years now, and legal issues/tax breaks are not an issue. She just wants to hear me say it in front of the official :rolleyes:

Julian 10-02-2004 01:12
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
My guess would be to have made their vows to each other in public. To make it 'official' much like heterosexual couples do. (My girlfriend has managed to make me agree to getting married this year. We have been together for about 8 years now, and legal issues/tax breaks are not an issue. She just wants to hear me say it in front of the official :rolleyes:
No probs with that Daniel.... just let them have their own ceremony. :)

Different religions do it in their own way , why shouldn't different sexual groups?

All equally recognisable in the eyes of the law etc. :)

philip.j.fry 10-02-2004 02:15
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
I wonder if I'd be permitted to make similar insulting comments about non-believers as has been made about Christians in this thread? Not that I'd want to, but it would be interesting to see how many people reported me.
?? I've tried not to, if I have sorry

Ramrod 10-02-2004 09:40
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Gotcha :)

Ramrod, homosexuals (in this country at least) are not asking for gay marriages much to the annoyance of the Today programme on radio 4 :D
They got on a gay rights activist and a Tory MP hoping to have a slanging match and were rather cheesed off when both totally agreed that gays should have the same legal rights as married couples but gays shouldn't have marriage.
It then would seem that I am in complete agreement, over this issue, with the gay rights movement in the UK :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
They just want to be able to register their partnership.
No cerimony, no marriage type thing, just a legal acknowledgment of their partnership
Sounds fine to me :)

Ramrod 10-02-2004 09:47
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
The problem I would have about restricting marriage to religion only is that it is an unfair judgement on people who do not accept any one religion. Also, where do you stop, do you allow all religions to have marriage, or just specific ones? (not aimed at you Ramrod, just general question :) )
People who haven't got a religion could have some sort of civil ceremony (as my wife and I did) because, for them (and us), marrying in a church would be hypocritical.
AFAIK all religions do have marriage (dont they? :confused: ).

Ramrod 10-02-2004 09:51
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that a church which believes in a book that says homosexuality is bad should allow homosexuals in their religious marriage (yet).
Thats all right then :)

Quote:
Also, your 'watering down' statement does give the impression that you do find religious marriage more meaningful than other types.
Not at all. I just think that a 'religious' marriage should be kept as it is and always has been.

philip.j.fry 10-02-2004 10:32
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
People who haven't got a religion could have some sort of civil ceremony (as my wife and I did) because, for them (and us), marrying in a church would be hypocritical.
.
I think we may have been arguing at cross-purposes. I'm arguing that there should be many forms of marriage ceremony. Religious ceremonies can and should be only open to adherants of that religion, I agree with you totally on that, it is hypocritical otherwise. Anybody else should be allowed the freedom of the civil ceremony, it is then up to them if they have a private marriage ceremony second to that.

What I don't like and am arguing against, is the argument that the word marriage should only be applicable to religious marriage. I take my beliefs very seriously but they are not religious beliefs. However, I feel very strongly, that I want to be married (I'm heterosexual). I want to have the civil marriage, to be married in the eyes of the law, then to have a private ceremony to be married in my heart. I find it insulting that some people are arguing that they would not recognise that marriage and by implication that my feelings for my partner re less special. Yet if I were to break my own beliefs, and go and marry in a church (which I will not do) then I would be recognised as being married.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Not at all. I just think that a 'religious' marriage should be kept as it is and always has been.
No one is disagreeing with you :) It's just confusing when people put marriage and forget the reigious prefix :tut: :)

Ramrod 10-02-2004 10:43
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
I think we may have been arguing at cross-purposes. I'm arguing that there should be many forms of marriage ceremony. Religious ceremonies can and should be only open to adherants of that religion, I agree with you totally on that, it is hypocritical otherwise. Anybody else should be allowed the freedom of the civil ceremony, it is then up to them if they have a private marriage ceremony second to that.

What I don't like and am arguing against, is the argument that the word marriage should only be applicable to religious marriage. I take my beliefs very seriously but they are not religious beliefs. However, I feel very strongly, that I want to be married (I'm heterosexual). I want to have the civil marriage, to be married in the eyes of the law, then to have a private ceremony to be married in my heart. I find it insulting that some people are arguing that they would not recognise that marriage and by implication that my feelings for my partner re less special. Yet if I were to break my own beliefs, and go and marry in a church (which I will not do) then I would be recognised as being married.
Agreed. It's a tricky one and all down to what things are called. I'll have to have a think...



Quote:
No one is disagreeing with you :) It's just confusing when people put marriage and forget the reigious prefix :tut: :)
Sorry :D

Sociable 10-02-2004 10:50
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
*Cough* Errr.... I refer the gentlemen to the answer I gave earlier. :rofl:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sociable
:Peaceman:

In fairness to Russ all he is saying is that "in his eyes" the marriage would not be a real one and he has every right to hold that view and needs not (further) explain why.

The reality is that the state makes similar distinctions in reverse as the validity of marriages depends on which religion holds the ceremony requiring most to also go through a civil procedure as well as the "church" one for the marriage to be validated for official purposes.

In essence there will always be a need to cover two separate concepts. The first being the civil †œmarriageà¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚à , which I am certain Russ would not disagree would always be legal in the eyes of the law.

The separate issue of being married in the eyes of God is something each individual is perfectly right to make their own personal judgement on as it is about THEIR beliefs not those of the couple getting married.

The only time this would create a problem would be if the person concerned was acting in some official capacity and refused to accept the civil marriage because of some personal belief that the marriage was not valid in the eyes of God.

Hope that helps resolve this dispute by giving a different perspective on the differences between civil and religious marriage.

downquark1 10-02-2004 10:52
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Michael Howard said he would support legalised gay civil unions but not "marriage"

philip.j.fry 10-02-2004 11:20
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sociable
*Cough* Errr.... I refer the gentlemen to the answer I gave earlier. :rofl:
I gave a similar argument earlier than you :PP: :D

You're right, however some people haven't just been arguing that in their eyes they don't recognise the marriage, but also that the other/s should not be allowed to use the word marriage. At least that's how it appeared because naughty people kept saying marriage and not clarifying it :D

Maggy 10-02-2004 15:29
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
No, you made a sweeping generalisation which I took exception too. Then, when I pulled you up on it, you seem to decide to resort to outrage and bluster instead of reason.



If you *had* done that, I wouldn't have objected. The fact that you chose to couch it in terms such as " everyone seems to personalise these errr..... discussions (sometimes tirades) down to attacking Russ" was what I objected to, which, you might have realised had you actually bothered to read my response instead of "just giving up reading whatever you have to say because it's too boring to read through your overlong long postings."



Were I to have actually done so, then you would have been right to call me a hypocrite, however since that is something I assiduously attempt to avoid doing, I cannot accept the appelation. (Alliteration actually unintentional!)



Off hand I can't say I know who erol is and, frankly, I don't care who he or she is because I am *not* erol, I do not speak for him/ her, nor does he/she speak for me.

I write my own posts, based on my own opinions. I do not attempt to "change people's minds just by nagging at them" I attempt to do so by pointing out logical flaws in their arguments or assumptions.

If you can't accept that...



And if anyone doesn't like what I have to say about their postings, then *they* can walk away. But I'm not going to stop posting because of that.



I'm sure, then that you haven't bothered to read down this far, but that's not my problem.
Whatever! :zzz:

Graham 11-02-2004 14:11
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Ah, more reasoned debate from Incognitas... :rolleyes:

xaq141175 11-02-2004 14:13
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
the legislative body should leave marriage alone ... completely.

Chris 11-02-2004 14:20
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Ah, more reasoned debate from Incognitas... :rolleyes:
No, simply that Incognitas proves she knows how to walk away from an argument.

Graham 11-02-2004 14:23
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by towny
No, simply that Incognitas proves she knows how to walk away from an argument.
No, it proves that neither you nor Incognitas understands that to "walk away from an argument" you *walk away* from it, you do *not* make a snide and dismissive comment in an attempt to get the last word and *then* try to get away.

Chris 11-02-2004 14:26
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
No, it proves that neither you nor Incognitas understands that to "walk away from an argument" you *walk away* from it, you do *not* make a snide and dismissive comment in an attempt to get the last word and *then* try to get away.
:walk:

Ramrod 11-02-2004 14:35
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Earlier (waaaay earlier) in this thread (at least I think it was this thread) someone was arguing that the incidence of homosexuality amongst priests is the same as for the general population. FYI This is not true. Amongst Anglicans at least, it is approx. 30%.

Maggy 11-02-2004 18:55
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Ah, more reasoned debate from Incognitas... :rolleyes:

Whatever :zzz:

Xaccers 11-02-2004 19:00
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
Michael Howard said he would support legalised gay civil unions but not "marriage"
Which is in line with what gay rights organisations are calling for :)

Jerrek 12-02-2004 01:41
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
I firmly believe that the legislature (the people) should decide on this topic, not the courts. That said, what is happening?

- In 1996, Bill Clinton passed the Defense of the Marriage Act which allowed states to choose whether they want to recognize gay "marriages," and it also denied recognition by the federal government. This means that no federal benefits will apply to same-sex couples, even if they are "married" in a state that allows for it.

- Early last decade, the Hawaiin Supreme Court decided to allow same-sex marriages. However, the people voted, and the legislature amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. This is an example of how out-of-touch a court can be with the people.

- Massachusettes's Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to "marry" is against the State's Constitution. Furthermore, it set a date of May this year after which same-sex couples can get "married." The legislature is trying to do something about it. Unfortunately, the earliest a State Constitutional Amendment can get on the ballots is 2006. That leaves the legislature in a bad position. The Governor may counter the court's decision, but it isn't sure that he will do such a thing because it might hurt his future.

- 38 states so far passed laws or amendments refusing to recognize same-sex marriages.

- President Bush is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriages if the courts keep ruling in favor of them (showing how out-of-touch with reality they are).


So what does this mean?

- If you live in Massachusettes and get married, your "marriage" will not be recognized by the federal government or any other state (for now).

- If you do not live in Massachusettes and do get "married" there, the same thing will apply. If you go back home to say, Texas, you will not be considered married.

- If you do get "married" there, you risk having your "marriage" declared null and void in 2006 when the State Constitutional Amendment comes on the ballot. If people vote in favor of such an amendment, you won't be married.

- California is going about it the right way. Instead of having courts make laws, the legislature is trying to get a bill through to legalize same-sex "marriages." But the same as with Massachusettes--your "marriage" won't be recognized elsewhere.

- A Constitutional Amendment requires that 66% of the Senate and 66% of the House approve it. Then the President needs to sign it (if it gets vetoed then it goes back for another run--if it passes again it overrides the presidential veto), and then 75% of the states need to ratify it in their respective legislatures (38 states). This is a long and difficult process, but quite possible. Why? Because:

- In this week's Time Magazine a few interesting statistics:

-- 60% of people are opposed to same-sex marriages. 36% in favor.
-- 48% favor a Constitutional amendment, 47% are against it.
-- 38 states already have laws or amendments banning gay marriages.


I do believe a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go. Leave it up to the individual states to decide whether they want to recognize civil unions. And, give other states the right to refuse to recognize civil unions from other states.



Now what else is happening? There seems to be a little bit of a panic regarding this Massachusettes thing. A lot of states may now hurry to enforce a gay marriage ban. Time Magazine speculates that a major backlash may come against gay marriage. And this is in an election year. 48% of people surveyed stated that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate that supports gay marriage. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have a major nominee meeting in Massachusettes (Kerry's home state). You can bet your left nut gay marriages will be brought up, and it will be carried by the media. After Kerry gets the nomination, the Republicans will start the war. They managed to make Gore look like a liberal. Just think of what a feast they will have with Kerry, the liberal Senator from Massachusettes, a state that ruled gay marriages is legal!

It is going to be an interesting year.

Shaun 12-02-2004 01:55
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
I firmly believe that the legislature (the people) should decide on this topic, not the courts. That said, what is happening?

- In 1996, Bill Clinton passed the Defense of the Marriage Act which allowed states to choose whether they want to recognize gay "marriages," and it also denied recognition by the federal government. This means that no federal benefits will apply to same-sex couples, even if they are "married" in a state that allows for it.

- Early last decade, the Hawaiin Supreme Court decided to allow same-sex marriages. However, the people voted, and the legislature amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. This is an example of how out-of-touch a court can be with the people.

- Massachusettes's Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to "marry" is against the State's Constitution. Furthermore, it set a date of May this year after which same-sex couples can get "married." The legislature is trying to do something about it. Unfortunately, the earliest a State Constitutional Amendment can get on the ballots is 2006. That leaves the legislature in a bad position. The Governor may counter the court's decision, but it isn't sure that he will do such a thing because it might hurt his future.

- 38 states so far passed laws or amendments refusing to recognize same-sex marriages.

- President Bush is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriages if the courts keep ruling in favor of them (showing how out-of-touch with reality they are).


So what does this mean?

- If you live in Massachusettes and get married, your "marriage" will not be recognized by the federal government or any other state (for now).

- If you do not live in Massachusettes and do get "married" there, the same thing will apply. If you go back home to say, Texas, you will not be considered married.

- If you do get "married" there, you risk having your "marriage" declared null and void in 2006 when the State Constitutional Amendment comes on the ballot. If people vote in favor of such an amendment, you won't be married.

- California is going about it the right way. Instead of having courts make laws, the legislature is trying to get a bill through to legalize same-sex "marriages." But the same as with Massachusettes--your "marriage" won't be recognized elsewhere.

- A Constitutional Amendment requires that 66% of the Senate and 66% of the House approve it. Then the President needs to sign it (if it gets vetoed then it goes back for another run--if it passes again it overrides the presidential veto), and then 75% of the states need to ratify it in their respective legislatures (38 states). This is a long and difficult process, but quite possible. Why? Because:

- In this week's Time Magazine a few interesting statistics:

-- 60% of people are opposed to same-sex marriages. 36% in favor.
-- 48% favor a Constitutional amendment, 47% are against it.
-- 38 states already have laws or amendments banning gay marriages.


I do believe a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go. Leave it up to the individual states to decide whether they want to recognize civil unions. And, give other states the right to refuse to recognize civil unions from other states.



Now what else is happening? There seems to be a little bit of a panic regarding this Massachusettes thing. A lot of states may now hurry to enforce a gay marriage ban. Time Magazine speculates that a major backlash may come against gay marriage. And this is in an election year. 48% of people surveyed stated that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate that supports gay marriage. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have a major nominee meeting in Massachusettes (Kerry's home state). You can bet your left nut gay marriages will be brought up, and it will be carried by the media. After Kerry gets the nomination, the Republicans will start the war. They managed to make Gore look like a liberal. Just think of what a feast they will have with Kerry, the liberal Senator from Massachusettes, a state that ruled gay marriages is legal!

It is going to be an interesting year.
Quote:
Early last decade, the Hawaiin Supreme Court decided to allow same-sex marriages. However, the people voted, and the legislature amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. This is an example of how out-of-touch a court can be with the people.
You're the joke :)

Jerrek 12-02-2004 03:48
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
You basically repeated what I said, and then...? What the f?

dr wadd 12-02-2004 08:17
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
- Early last decade, the Hawaiin Supreme Court decided to allow same-sex marriages. However, the people voted, and the legislature amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. This is an example of how out-of-touch a court can be with the people.
What you actually mean is, "how dare the courts interfere with my bigotry." I don`t think it is a case of the courts being out of touch with the people. The average man on the street bases their opinion on rhetoric force-fed to them by the media and religion. The court bases its opinion on a careful examination of the facts in hand. If you want to describe it as being "out of touch" that is your right, but personally I see that as a good thing if that means being "out of touch" with spoon-fed opinions.

downquark1 12-02-2004 08:43
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
What you actually mean is, "how dare the courts interfere with my bigotry." I don`t think it is a case of the courts being out of touch with the people. The average man on the street bases their opinion on rhetoric force-fed to them by the media and religion. The court bases its opinion on a careful examination of the facts in hand. If you want to describe it as being "out of touch" that is your right, but personally I see that as a good thing if that means being "out of touch" with spoon-fed opinions.
That's democracy....

Chris 12-02-2004 09:43
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
What you actually mean is, "how dare the courts interfere with my bigotry." I don`t think it is a case of the courts being out of touch with the people. The average man on the street bases their opinion on rhetoric force-fed to them by the media and religion. The court bases its opinion on a careful examination of the facts in hand. If you want to describe it as being "out of touch" that is your right, but personally I see that as a good thing if that means being "out of touch" with spoon-fed opinions.
You may well have a point Doc - everyone remembers the Sun's post-election headline in 1992, 'It was the Sun wot won it' (or words to that effect). They made this claim after a narrow Tory victory, claiming their polling-day headline 'If Labour win tonight, will the last person out of Britain please switch off the lights', influenced the electorate enough to prevent a collapse in support for the Conservative Government.

People's opinions can be influenced. But we nevertheless live in a system in which the will of all the people is considered paramount. It's called democracy. And for that reason, the decisions taken in Hawaiii have to be respected. The will of the people is supreme.

In any case, I don't agree with your assessment that law courts are nearly so clinical in their analyses as you suggest. A person doesn't suddenly become immune to philosophy, opinion and their own past experience on the day they don a silly wig (or whatever they wear in Hawaii, or anywhere else for that matter). The legal profession is influenced by prevailing theories of criminology - which may be quite different to popular opinion - in the same way as the teaching profession is influenced by theories of education.

These professional theories may or may not be more valid than popular opinion, but that's not the point. If we choose to live in a democracy, we choose to accept that popular opinion is valued more highly than professionally held opinion.

Maybe I'll start a thread proposing that we abandon universal suffrage for a system in which voters must pass some kind of test before being allowed to mark a ballot paper ... ;)

Bifta 12-02-2004 10:02
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Two men cannot have a child naturally, and two women can't have a child naturally. Therefore, a same-sex union is unnatural.
Interesting perspective ... do you recall a couple of PM's you sent me a while back? I won't post them here because you know what they said, and I'll gladly forward them back to you, but suffice to say, you need to make your mind up one way or another.

Ramrod 12-02-2004 11:30
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...998216,00.html

Jerrek 12-02-2004 13:26
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
What you actually mean is, "how dare the courts interfere with my bigotry." I don`t think it is a case of the courts being out of touch with the people. The average man on the street bases their opinion on rhetoric force-fed to them by the media and religion. The court bases its opinion on a careful examination of the facts in hand. If you want to describe it as being "out of touch" that is your right, but personally I see that as a good thing if that means being "out of touch" with spoon-fed opinions.
If the majority of the people voted to amend the State Constitution, then clearly the courts are out-of-touch with reality. The courts are there to interpret the law, not make the law. We have a clear division of powers in the United States and Canada.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 13:30
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bifta
Interesting perspective ... do you recall a couple of PM's you sent me a while back? I won't post them here because you know what they said, and I'll gladly forward them back to you, but suffice to say, you need to make your mind up one way or another.
Oh get real. I've made no secret of that fact. Being straight, gay, or bisexual does not mean you can't have an opinion.

It isn't natural for man and man to marry. And I stand with that. You'll be surprised how many gay people agree with it (and just don't care), and how many of them actually don't want same-sex marriages. I suggest you go to a gay bar and asking around a bit.

Bifta 12-02-2004 13:38
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Oh get real. I've made no secret of that fact. Being straight, gay, or bisexual does not mean you can't have an opinion.

It isn't natural for man and man to marry. And I stand with that. You'll be surprised how many gay people agree with it (and just don't care), and how many of them actually don't want same-sex marriages. I suggest you go to a gay bar and asking around a bit.
You say it's not natural for same sex couples to marry, yet you believe that it's ok for them to copulate, yet surely people like yourself believe in no sex before marriage ... do you see a problem arising? Also, which bits of the bible are you ignoring this week? ;)

Sociable 12-02-2004 13:49
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Interesting article Ramrod and much in line with what I anticipated in one of my earlier posts in this thread.

I see the debate has moved on a bit to the individual roles that the various branches of government play in all of this and the inevitable impact that the separation of powers has on how each branch acts to provide checks and balances in the process.

The Courts role is often the most easy to comprehend as they are charged with what at first sight is the easier to define i.e. upholding the Law itself.

They are not charged with being "just" they are charged with applying the law in a "just" way. If a law was passed saying people over six feet tall had to pay a special tax and an individual failed to comply the courts would have no option but to convict if this was proven to have happened. This would be the case regardless of whether the lawyers or judges actually agreed with that law itself as that is not their role. Above all they do not take into account either public opinion or political pressure and long may that continue.

Where their role becomes more confusing, however, is when it comes to constitutional law, not least as the UK has little or no clearly defined constitutional law. One exception to this is the newly incorporated Human Rights legislation.

It is this more than anything else which may, in time, lead to challenges to any legislation which can be seen to conflict with the rights guaranteed by the convention of Human Rights in much the same way as the Supreme Court in the US often rules State Laws unlawful in the US because they conflict with the Constitution.

Next we come to the Law makers themselves and I find it somewhat quaint that some still believe the way they operate is †œdemocraticÃƒà ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚à ‚. Many decisions by parliament have little to do with reflecting the views of the majority and in fact there are some very valid reasons for this.

The first is that MPâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s are charged with making decisions based on the detailed knowledge they have of the often complex issues involved. Part of their role is also standing up for the minority against the will of the majority when this is seen to be both fair and just.

So what of the will of the majority?

Well, over time, they do have an impact on the law makers but only when the different parties offer different policies on the specific area under discussion or when the issue is the subject of a completely free vote in parliament. A good example of how, even in this latter case, this does not always lead to the majority public opinion holding sway over parliament is the various votes on Capital Punishment.

So how does all of this feed back into the current debate on Gay Marriage?

As can be seen, from the article provided by Ramrod, even the church is now softening its stance on gay marriage. This combined with the growing awareness of the need for the law to reflect the need for fairness and equality under the law will eventually, IMHO, lead to changes in the law to ensure fairness for all.

The compromise which may well evolve, at least in the UK, will be some form of civil †œcontractà¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚à  recognised for all statutory purposes as †œmarriageà¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚à  and available to all without discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. This will still be restricted by rules based on age and existing family relationships to prevent incest and the abuse of the young.

The churches will retain the right to choose to restrict their specific requirements and qualifications as to who can and canââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t marry according to their specific faith, but many will adopt some form of blessing which will be available to those that do not meet those specific requirements.

Stuartbe 12-02-2004 13:52
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bifta
You say it's not natural for same sex couples to marry, yet you believe that it's ok for them to copulate, yet surely people like yourself believe in no sex before marriage ... do you see a problem arising? Also, which bits of the bible are you ignoring this week? ;)
As my grandad used to say - God made adam and eve ..... Not adam and steve !!

Jerrek 12-02-2004 13:53
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bifta
yet surely people like yourself believe in no sex before marriage ... do you see a problem arising?
Yes, and I don't claim to have all the answers either. However my point stands. *marriage* is reserved for a man and a woman. I couldn't care less about civil unions. However, you should not be making asssumptions such as "surely people like yourself believe..." I don't think I've ever stated my opinion on sex before marriage, nor am I inclined to do so now. Suffice to say, sex with a woman before marriage is wrong according to the Bible.

Bifta 12-02-2004 13:54
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Suffice to say, sex with a woman before marriage is wrong according to the Bible.
Ah ok, but if you're male, sex with a male is ok? And I apologise for presuming you lived your life by the bible, perhaps it's an impression you give out.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 13:57
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Oh and, in terms of a civil union, corporations and employers should have the right to choose whether they recognize it, and whether benefits will be applied.

dr wadd 12-02-2004 13:58
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
If the majority of the people voted to amend the State Constitution, then clearly the courts are out-of-touch with reality. The courts are there to interpret the law, not make the law. We have a clear division of powers in the United States and Canada.
It ties in nicely to something that Towny said and something that my mother has been arguing for a long time, that democracy doesn`t work because the average citizen doesn`t have the intellect to wield their vote in a sensible and well reasoned manner. The majority of people may have voted against the amendment, that is their right, but at the end of the day they are using that vote to legitimise their own bigotry because that is easier than facing up to their prejudice.

You don`t have a clear division between the powers of the court in the USA, otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn`t have been able to rule against the sodomy laws in Texas.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 13:59
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bifta
And I apologise for presuming you lived your life by the bible, perhaps it's an impression you give out.
That was uncalled for.

Bifta 12-02-2004 14:01
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
That was uncalled for.
I don't think it was, I said "perhaps it's an impression you give out" which followed an apology for making an assumption.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:02
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
It ties in nicely to something that Towny said and something that my mother has been arguing for a long time, that democracy doesn`t work because the average citizen doesn`t have the intellect to wield their vote in a sensible and well reasoned manner. The majority of people may have voted against the amendment, that is their right, but at the end of the day they are using that vote to legitimise their own bigotry because that is easier than facing up to their prejudice.
And that is their right to do so. You may not like it, but you're not a citizen there, so respect it. If you are so opposed to democracy, maybe you should move to the Worker's Republic of Cambodia.

Oh and, I suppose the fact that there is a law preventing sex with minors is just an abuse of a democratic society "legitimise their own bigotry because that is easier than facing up to their prejudice."

Good work.

Quote:
You don`t have a clear division between the powers of the court in the USA, otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn`t have been able to rule against the sodomy laws in Texas.
Yes there is a clear dividing line between the separation of powers. In that decision, the Supreme Court didn't enact a law, they merely ruled that the law made by Texas is against the Constitution (which it is). You failed to demonstrate how this relates to being not a clear division of power.

dr wadd 12-02-2004 14:04
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Yes, and I don't claim to have all the answers either. However my point stands. *marriage* is reserved for a man and a woman.
Only because people like you have decided that it should be reserved in this manner. And don`t come back and argue that it is in the bible, as that should have nothing to do with legislation in a secular state. To be honest, if there were a referendum on this issue, I think that any vote that has been demonstrated to have been cast on religious grounds, either for or against, should be discounted as it goes against the principals of a secular state.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:06
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
Only because people like you have decided that it should be reserved in this manner.
Yes, and it has been like that for thousands of years. It was invented by heterosexuals.

Quote:
And don`t come back and argue that it is in the bible, as that should have nothing to do with legislation in a secular state. To be honest, if there were a referendum on this issue, I think that any vote that has been demonstrated to have been cast on religious grounds, either for or against, should be discounted as it goes against the principals of a secular state.
However, people have the right to vote in accordance what their religion tells them to. You may dislike it, but I value that right.

If someone wants to legalize dog-man sex, for example, I will vote against it and my religion will have an influence on it.

dr wadd 12-02-2004 14:08
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
And that is their right to do so. You may not like it, but you're not a citizen there, so respect it. If you are so opposed to democracy, maybe you should move to the Worker's Republic of Cambodia.

Oh and, I suppose the fact that there is a law preventing sex with minors is just an abuse of a democratic society "legitimise their own bigotry because that is easier than facing up to their prejudice."

Good work.
Thank you, you've entirely proven my point as to why some people shouldn`t be allowed to vote. Once again you've conflated entirely irrelevant issues to try and win your argument, and once you start conflating issues in this manner it becomes entirely trivial to dismiss anything your type as irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Yes there is a clear dividing line between the separation of powers. In that decision, the Supreme Court didn't enact a law, they merely ruled that the law made by Texas is against the Constitution (which it is). You failed to demonstrate how this relates to being not a clear division of power.
Mere semantics, at the end of the day the decision of the Supreme Court will be the one that is applied. Ok, so they don`t do the actual applying of the changes themselves, but they are the ones that have decided what changes will be pushed through.

philip.j.fry 12-02-2004 14:12
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sociable
The compromise which may well evolve, at least in the UK, will be some form of civil †œcontractà¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚à  recognised for all statutory purposes as †œmarriageà¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚à  and available to all without discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. This will still be restricted by rules based on age and existing family relationships to prevent incest and the abuse of the young.
I'm in total agreement with you. The trouble would begin I think, if in law there existed 'marriage' and 'civil-union'. IMO if there is a diffrentiation in the law between the two it leaves itself open for discrimination in the future, as one of the US Court Judges stated 'different is rarely equal'. It doesn't matter in my eyes whether the law states either 'marriage' or 'civil-union', as long as it is one or the other and not both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Oh and, in terms of a civil union, corporations and employers should have the right to choose whether they recognize it, and whether benefits will be applied.
This would create an extremely dangerous precedent in my opinion, it would be starting down the road to rule by corporation, a very scary thought.

dr wadd 12-02-2004 14:13
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Yes, and it has been like that for thousands of years. It was invented by heterosexuals.
And how did the human race procreate before this incredible "invention"? Where is the patent filed? :rolleyes:

Just because something has been around for a long time doesn`t legitimise it. The poor treatment of racial groups other than Caucasians had been around for a long time in the west before society started to consider it unacceptable.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:15
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
Thank you, you've entirely proven my point as to why some people shouldn`t be allowed to vote.
Interesting. Agree with me, or you can't vote? That sounds like the Soviet Union and China. Yep, you're on the right track if you're a fanboy of socialism/communism.

I, on the other hand, believe that all productive members of society have the right to vote. That exludes criminals and welfare recipients. See the difference between us? I believe in the current U.S. system, greatest democracy on earth, and you would rather assign voting rights based on who agrees with you.

Quote:
Once again you've conflated entirely irrelevant issues to try and win your argument, and once you start conflating issues in this manner it becomes entirely trivial to dismiss anything your type as irrelevant.
Yes sir.

Quote:
Mere semantics, at the end of the day the decision of the Supreme Court will be the one that is applied. Ok, so they don`t do the actual applying of the changes themselves, but they are the ones that have decided what changes will be pushed through.
And that is what their job is. Interpret the law. You've clearly demonstrated that there is a separation of powers, and your "mere semantics" is just a laughable excuse. Do you know what the separation of powers mean and imply?

dr wadd 12-02-2004 14:15
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
This would create an extremely dangerous precedent in my opinion, it would be starting down the road to rule by corporation, a very scary thought.
If civil unions were recognised in law there would also be the necessary legal framework to protect the recognition of those rights, much in the same way we now have specific legislation against discrimination in the work place on the grounds of ethnic background and gender. Jerrek can bleat on all he likes about ignoring these unions should they come to pass, but at the end of the day he won`t have any choice about whether he recognises them or not.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:18
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
This would create an extremely dangerous precedent in my opinion, it would be starting down the road to rule by corporation, a very scary thought.
What? How will corporations now start to "rule" the country? They can't make laws! They can't enact laws! They can't govern! They can't pass judgment!

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:21
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
And how did the human race procreate before this incredible "invention"? Where is the patent filed? :rolleyes:
Garden of Eden, c. 4400 B.C. Humans didn't procreate before that.

Quote:
Just because something has been around for a long time doesn`t legitimise it. The poor treatment of racial groups other than Caucasians had been around for a long time in the west before society started to consider it unacceptable.
I agree, but I do value tradition, and this is not harming anyone.

dr wadd 12-02-2004 14:21
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Interesting. Agree with me, or you can't vote? That sounds like the Soviet Union and China. Yep, you're on the right track if you're a fanboy of socialism/communism.
I never said that you had to agree with me in order to get the vote, merely that you had to have the capacity in the first place to think through the reasons for casting your vote one way or the other, and not to be merely led by the tabloids or what some 2000 year old book tells you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
I, on the other hand, believe that all productive members of society have the right to vote. That exludes criminals and welfare recipients. See the difference between us?
The fact that you would exclude people from welfare automatically voting speaks volumes about your attitude to human rights. Of course, in these times of turbulent economies you can absolutely guarantee that you would be in gainful employment your entire life?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
And that is what their job is. Interpret the law. You've clearly demonstrated that there is a separation of powers, and your "mere semantics" is just a laughable excuse. Do you know what the separation of powers mean and imply?
And if their interpretation of the law is upheld, as it is in this case, and any changes to the law are enacted based on their interpretations, then at a fundamental level they are making the laws. Maybe Dubya isn`t scrawling his X on a bit of paper, but at the end of the day that amounts to little more than a rubber stamp.

Bifta 12-02-2004 14:21
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
That exludes criminals and welfare recipients
Sorry to take this off track once again, but you actually believe that people on welfare shouldn't have the right to vote?

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:23
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
If civil unions were recognised in law there would also be the necessary legal framework to protect the recognition of those rights, much in the same way we now have specific legislation against discrimination in the work place on the grounds of ethnic background and gender. Jerrek can bleat on all he likes about ignoring these unions should they come to pass, but at the end of the day he won`t have any choice about whether he recognises them or not.
I want to give employers the right to choose.

Sociable 12-02-2004 14:23
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
What? How will corporations now start to "rule" the country? They can't make laws! They can't enact laws! They can't govern! They can't pass judgment!
Well leaving asside the ways they do often influence governments the key thing is your assertion that they should still be able to discriminate, even if such "unions" were made lawful, is obviously unsupportable.

They would have to recognise the union for all official aspects of benefits, pensions and other employee rights. As to use your phrasing "They are not above the law either".

philip.j.fry 12-02-2004 14:24
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
What? How will corporations now start to "rule" the country? They can't make laws! They can't enact laws! They can't govern! They can't pass judgment!
But if civil unions were written into the law, you are arguing that Corps should be exempt from or allowed to ignore that law. Which I am arguing would set a precedent for corporations discarding/ignoring other laws in the future, I didn't say that that they would immediately gain governance of the country :rolleyes:

dr wadd 12-02-2004 14:25
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Garden of Eden, c. 4400 B.C. Humans didn't procreate before that.
You believe in creationism? Just as well I had so little respect for your opinions in the first place, you just dropped of the scale entirely. How can you argue the case for legislation on the basis of Old Testament myths. It must really annoy you that you can`t stone adulterers to death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
I agree, but I do value tradition, and this is not harming anyone.
Translation - It's not harming Jerrek, and as long as Jerrek is not suffering in any way then why should he give a damn about the fact that a section of the population are being denied the same rights that everyone he can enjoy.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:26
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bifta
Sorry to take this off track once again, but you actually believe that people on welfare shouldn't have the right to vote?
Yes. Absolutely. They are not productive in society, so why have them decide? They will just vote who will give them the most free money.

I am intrigued that you don't object to waddy's arbitrary assignment of votes based on who agrees with him, but me wanting to exclude non-productive people from voting gets the attention.

dr wadd 12-02-2004 14:27
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sociable
Well leaving asside the ways they do often influence governments the key thing is your assertion that they should still be able to discriminate, even if such "unions" were made lawful, is obviously unsupportable.
I think influence is entirely too mild a term, at least in the context of the US government. Given the dubious ties that seemingly everyone in the administration has to big business and the obscene amount of money spent on political lobbying I think over there big business does pretty much run the country. If I had my way political lobbying by corporations would be entirely illegal.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:27
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sociable
Well leaving asside the ways they do often influence governments the key thing is your assertion that they should still be able to discriminate, even if such "unions" were made lawful, is obviously unsupportable.

They would have to recognise the union for all official aspects of benefits, pensions and other employee rights. As to use your phrasing "They are not above the law either".
No. I will specifically write my benefits for married couples then.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:30
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
You believe in creationism? Just as well I had so little respect for your opinions in the first place, you just dropped of the scale entirely. How can you argue the case for legislation on the basis of Old Testament myths.
Absolutely. And, don't pretend, you've never had respect for anyone that doesn't agree with you. In fact, you're openly displaying hostility towards people that are religious and base their decisions on that. Get over it. That is why we left Europe. No freedom!

Quote:
It must really annoy you that you can`t stone adulterers to death
More dribble from you. If you want people to be able to think before allowing them to vote, don't forget to exclude yourself. You're making senseless accusations in an attempt to claw to the few straws that is left, and they're slipping.


Quote:
Translation - It's not harming Jerrek, and as long as Jerrek is not suffering in any way then why should he give a damn about the fact that a section of the population are being denied the same rights that everyone he can enjoy.
No, they're not harming anyone. Read what I write. No one so far has provided ANY reasons why we should allow gays to marry, and what the benefits to society will be.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:31
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
I think influence is entirely too mild a term, at least in the context of the US government. Given the dubious ties that seemingly everyone in the administration has to big business and the obscene amount of money spent on political lobbying I think over there big business does pretty much run the country. If I had my way political lobbying by corporations would be entirely illegal.
Like in the Soviet Union?

philip.j.fry 12-02-2004 14:32
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
No. I will specifically write my benefits for married couples then.
And that would be the exact reason why it would be dangerous to draw a distinction between marriage and civil unions in the law.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:32
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
But if civil unions were written into the law, you are arguing that Corps should be exempt from or allowed to ignore that law. Which I am arguing would set a precedent for corporations discarding/ignoring other laws in the future, I didn't say that that they would immediately gain governance of the country :rolleyes:
The law will merely provide recognition by the state government. Individuals, churches, employers, and organizations can choose whether to recognize them or not.

Stuartbe 12-02-2004 14:32
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
I think influence is entirely too mild a term, at least in the context of the US government. Given the dubious ties that seemingly everyone in the administration has to big business and the obscene amount of money spent on political lobbying I think over there big business does pretty much run the country. If I had my way political lobbying by corporations would be entirely illegal.
When these overpriced and overpaid biggots are running the country there is no true democracy...

IMO - the country should operate a phone poll. Every registered votor gets a pin number. When a rule, law or country critical isue needs voting on everyone just calls in - enters there pin and votes... Now that would be democratic !!

I truely believe that marrage is not just a legal thing - It is something speciel that a man and a woman share - It says that you are comited to each other for ever.... I dont think that it should be taken lightly....

Just my 2p's worth

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:35
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartbe
IMO - the country should operate a phone poll. Every registered votor gets a pin number. When a rule, law or country critical isue needs voting on everyone just calls in - enters there pin and votes... Now that would be democratic !!
No, that would be mob rule. "Vote now! Should we take $1 million from all the rich people and give to the poor people?"

Quote:
I truely believe that marrage is not just a legal thing - It is something speciel that a man and a woman share - It says that you are comited to each other for ever.... I dont think that it should be taken lightly....

Just my 2p's worth
Exactly.

Sociable 12-02-2004 14:36
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
I have only one wish for you Jerrick and that is one day life will teach you a few much needed lessons about how to think and form opinions based on respect for other human beings rather than your own very narrow perspective.

I dread to think just how low your opinion of yourself will fall the day you inevitably need the help of others and yes also the need to rely on welfare.

There, but for the grace of whichever god you believe in, you will inevitably end up facing the impact of your own ill considered opinions and prejudice.

I for one feel sad for you, and the price you will pay for your current viewpoint in later life, because of this.

Stuartbe 12-02-2004 14:39
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
No, that would be mob rule. "Vote now! Should we take $1 million from all the rich people and give to the poor people?"
How is it mob rule m8 ???? If the majority of people in a country say yes to something then it should be yes.... That is what democracy is !

philip.j.fry 12-02-2004 14:43
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrek
The law will merely provide recognition by the state government. Individuals, churches, employers, and organizations can choose whether to recognize them or not.
I can agree with you on the individuals and the churches, they can and should be allowed to hold their own opinion. Organisations (sorry, I'm stuck in the world of z's at the monent :D ), is a bit of a loose term because it can be applied to so many things, i.e. churches and companies are organisations but very different, so can't say for them. But I disagree with you on employers. It is largely for the reason of benefits etc, which predominately come from employers, that people are arguing for same-sex unions/marriages to be legal. If an employer offers a benefit to a heterosexual couple, then that benefit should be available to homosexual couples.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:49
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
If an employer offers a benefit to a heterosexual couple, then that benefit should be available to homosexual couples.
Only if he so chooses.

Jerrek 12-02-2004 14:52
Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sociable
I have only one wish for you Jerrick and that is one day life will teach you a few much needed lessons about how to think and form opinions based on respect for other human beings rather than your own very narrow perspective.

I dread to think just how low your opinion of yourself will fall the day you inevitably need the help of others and yes also the need to rely on welfare.

There, but for the grace of whichever god you believe in, you will inevitably end up facing the impact of your own ill considered opinions and prejudice.

I for one feel sad for you, and the price you will pay for your current viewpoint in later life, because of this.
So now I will end up on government welfare? No. I plan on WORKING. I find it fascinating how you've managed to connect my opinion on same-sex "marriages" and end up with "one day you will end up on welfare." And, my opinions are "ill considered" because they disagree with YOURS? GET A LIFE.


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:48.
Page 3 of 5 12 3 45
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are Cable Forum