Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[FlFishOn]

It's a mental exercise not a research project.

P.S. I'm sorry I couldn't remember where I read that piece you re-located.

P.P.S. I no longer support my opinions with links, it's a waste of effort. Few are read, fewer are responded to. Most are dismissed if read, all in all a waste of my time. Add to that the volume that I read and the shoddy state of my memory for what I read where, I can't invest the time.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
All societies have a stake in the future generations. It's a huge responsibility, to propagate the species.

Instead of asking straights to find fault with gay sham 'marriage' I think it is much more important for gays to prove, beyond any scientific doubt, that gay sham 'marriage' is totally benign with respect to the future generations every society requires. I'm certain this can not be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legalizing gay marriage doesn't change anything. Without legal gay marriage... gays are still gay. A homosexual is a homosexual whether they can marry or not. Your argument is illogical.

Also- gay couples can and do have children. Another reason your argument is hollow.

Also- we're not exactly in a population crisis. Even if your premise was remotely accurate, you'd have to show that there's an issue with birthrates.

I think people should save everyone time and admit there's no logical reason to prevent gay marriage rights except to placate the bigotry of homophobes. Then we can acknowledge its irrational and move on.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

You might have to define 'natural' since homosexuality is completely natural. ie- found consistantly and throughout nature.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.


[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I'm not certain that it was originally just a religious sacrament. Remember that marriage was usually a business transaction. "Original" marriage bares little resemblence to marriage today (except perhaps arranged marriages in Afghanistan?)
(2) Religion has little to do with a lot of people's marriages. This is why Justice of the Peace and Sea Captains can marry people. It is a legal procedure. If you want to have a religious ceremony along with it, that's up to you. The important part as far as the govt. is concerned is the signing of the license with appropriate witnesses.
(4) No religion is forced to marry someone they don't choose to. So their religion is not threatened.

[ QUOTE ]
Any two (or more) people should be able to draw up contracts enumerating specific shared legal authority, authority in medical decisions, ownership of property, etc. etc. etc. There is no reason to associate such contracts with the historical religious sacrament of marriage, as this is the source of approximately 100% of the arguments surrounding gay marriage. Marriage is something that takes place in the specific context of one's personal religious beliefs and practices.


[/ QUOTE ]

They have these legal contracts - its called legal marriage (which is completely different then a religious marriage... which, has no legal binding.)

[ QUOTE ]
Problem solved: The religious component is not contaminated, and the law is not discriminitory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is backwards. We need to figure out how to keep the religious components from contaminating the legal components.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The human species is different from other species on this planet. Humans can rationalize things. A reasonable gay human male knows that it is not normal for a human male to want to insert his penis into another human male's rectum. He knows, that despite his own desires, the normal receptical for a human male's penis is a human female's vagina.

[/ QUOTE ]

No action is inherently rational. Actions are rational based on the desirability of their outcomes. If your goal is to be "normal," then yes homosexuality is irrational in the context of achieving that goal. If your goal is to be happy, then homosexuality can be the only rational course of action.

[Metric]

The point, of course, is that marriage exists independently of a government stamp of approval. Marriage will certainly not go away, and if anything the more conservative church-controlled aspect of marriage would become more significant than before.

My only suggestion is to remove the association of marriage (what the priest does for you) with a specific cookie-cutter, government-endorsed contract. Any group of people (2 or more, gay, straight or whatever -- the law doesn't care and neither do religious people) should be able to draw up their own legal contract resembling the shared rights and responsibilities of marriage, and customized to their particular situation.

So marriage becomes more "holy," the law becomes less discriminatory and more flexible all around. How does everyone not win?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The point, of course, is that marriage exists independently of a government stamp of approval. Marriage will certainly not go away, and if anything the more conservative church-controlled aspect of marriage would become more significant than before.

My only suggestion is to remove the association of marriage (what the priest does for you) with a specific cookie-cutter, government-endorsed contract. Any group of people (2 or more, gay, straight or whatever -- the law doesn't care and neither do religious people) should be able to draw up their own legal contract resembling the shared rights and responsibilities of marriage, and customized to their particular situation.

So marriage becomes more "holy," the law becomes less discriminatory and more flexible all around. How does everyone not win?

[/ QUOTE ]
Tick

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So marriage becomes more "holy," the law becomes less discriminatory and more flexible all around. How does everyone not win?

[/ QUOTE ]
The people who want to impose their lifestyle on others don't win. The bigots don't win.

Sadly there are many of them.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point, but can I ask you how you would feel if one of your own children happens to be gay? Would you still not want your child to be equal or legitimate in the eyes of the law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question and my answer is the same for a child of mine as it is for anyone else, ie...

I expect sexuality to not be a factor in any dealings not related to sexuality, so in these areas (representing 99+% of all dealings) there would be equal and legitimate treatment under the law.

For the remaining 1% it's basically a case of tough luck for both me and my son. I might try to get him to look on the bright side and remind him he's living in one of the most gay-tolerant countries in the world in the most gay-tolerant time in history and hope he sees that as a positive.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I might try to get him to look on the bright side and remind him he's living in one of the most gay-tolerant countries in the world in the most gay-tolerant time in history and hope he sees that as a positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY