Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2566 of them)

That's one up on most people.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

― Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (8 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (8 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (8 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (8 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (8 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

― Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (8 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

― briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (8 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (8 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

FWIW, while I should be supportive of it, I think a large amount of the gravity in people standing up for it has made the issue seem like one for the left fringe when it should be a centrist civil rights issue - and thus people get scared of it. And as such, maybe jumping up and down in a country where most people don't want it hinders the cause.

― edward o (edwardo), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

i'd rather not be KILLED

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, um, we're discussing gay marriage and, by extension, Christianity. Do by all means start a thread on why you hate Islam if you're so keen.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

The only logical way to deal with is to get rid of the legal institution of marriage, but there is no way anyone is going to get away with that. Just imagine the hysterical family values hoo-hah that would result.

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

one legitimate reason that people worry about a civil union between two people is because it would inevitably lead to demands for a civil union between more than two people. Which, of course, is totally rational.

The government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate civil matters between consenting adults (other than in areas of fraud, etc.)

― don weiner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

Okay, am I the only one who sees a deep irony here? The vast majority of the posters on this thread have been British!

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

I apologize in advance for the US-centric viewpoint but our election was just yesterday and I presume was the shitstorm that spurred the topic.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

(I was hoping noone would notice Dan)

But still, you are the spawn of our nation (i.e. you speak English).

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

(Also we have the same debate going on in the UK)

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we have gay marriage/civil union stuff brewing here as well! And with an established state religion, there are real actual constitutional problems involved. Though I do take your point.

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (8 years ago) Permalink

We don't have gay marriage yet either, Dan. (x-posts)

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (8 years ago) Permalink

Dan Perry - Spawn of England!

― adam... (nordicskilla), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (8 years ago) Permalink

Her Majesty is proud.

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:36 (8 years ago) Permalink

Woah, does this mean I can be President AND King???

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

Kneel before his er hrm ah er munificence.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:38 (8 years ago) Permalink

Well, not King exactly, but you could get married to William and be the nu-duke of Edinburgh.

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:39 (8 years ago) Permalink

Anyway, the liberal arguments will win - which is partly why the right are so afraid. We have been moving more and more towards egalitarian societies, ans they know they will lose. Add to that that I have never heard a proper argument against gay marriage and I am certain the egalitarians will win.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (8 years ago) Permalink

This should never be an issue. Let whomever wants to marry, marry. If they're crazy enough to want to do it, who am I to stand in their way? Hell, I'll even be flowergirl.

― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (8 years ago) Permalink

more like teh nude duke of edinburgh

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:41 (8 years ago) Permalink

'08 is going to be a banner fucking year for me.

It is probably best that I have four years to acclimate myself to the political realm before I turn 35 as right now I want to state all of my issues as satirical initiatives; my current solution to the gay marriage issue would be to pen a bill that banned divorce and heterosexual civil unions.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:43 (8 years ago) Permalink

As i thought. Trendy and acceptable to attack Christians. Unnacceptable to attack other religions which are actually tolerant and fluffy.

Ridiculous.

― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:47 (8 years ago) Permalink

"But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay couple get married in a church which recognises their partnership? "

I have no problem with that. But you can't legislate to force a church to do that. On the other hand, it's the law's business to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore we should separate out what churches do from what the law does, and call the two things by different names.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (8 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, Hooked On Phonics might work for you.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (8 years ago) Permalink

tolerant and fluffy?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (8 years ago) Permalink

The Passion of the Snuggle Bear.

― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:49 (8 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 2466 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

"I now pronounce you sex and sex."

"That'll happen."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:03 (1 week ago) Permalink

which marriage license are you applying for? no sex, sex, or sex-sex

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 13 May 2013 19:04 (1 week ago) Permalink

"There's a DJP on the phone, wants the ultrasex license."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

"Also everyone from Hastings is calling, wants to know what sex is."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

haha if there is one problem our town doesn't have

― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 13 May 2013 19:36 (1 week ago) Permalink

I was gonna say, one of our classmates just posted to Facebook about how her oldest just turned 23 today

― far too much asshole flesh (DJP), Monday, 13 May 2013 19:38 (1 week ago) Permalink

"They called back and explained they wanted to know when to stop."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:40 (1 week ago) Permalink

is there a platinum unlimited sex license for hastings

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 13 May 2013 20:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

it's more like aluminum

― far too much asshole flesh (DJP), Monday, 13 May 2013 20:08 (1 week ago) Permalink

unobtainium

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 13 May 2013 20:09 (1 week ago) Permalink

also it has a pull tab

― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 13 May 2013 21:21 (1 week ago) Permalink

And done

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/05/senate_approves_marriage_equality.php

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:23 (1 week ago) Permalink

Let's all get married to Eric H. in Brainerd.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:26 (1 week ago) Permalink

And at long last, Minnesota's most famous wedding is legal:

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:32 (1 week ago) Permalink

Wait.... so Michelle B did or did not actually say that the Twin Cities would be destroyed by God??

― Je55e, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:40 (1 week ago) Permalink

A: She did not.

Damn it. This is the first time I'm aware of that I've been fooled by fake news! But really, it was 100% believable!

― Je55e, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

She meant they would be destroyed by A-Rod.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:42 (1 week ago) Permalink

Nah this is MN we're talking about, she meant they would be destroyed by Joe Mauer.

― a monolithic testament to shiftlessness and lost productivity (dan m), Monday, 13 May 2013 21:45 (1 week ago) Permalink

I just searched 'evil Joe Mauer' on Google and

About 1,220,000 results (0.40 seconds)

https://twitter.com/EvilJoeMauer

So I'm inclined to agree with you.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:47 (1 week ago) Permalink

lol Blaine is the new SODOM (for gay sex devil worship orgy, it's the second left past Jimmy John's & Papa Murphy's)

"In my heart, I grieve on both sides. Because I know what it's like to be alone and I know what it is like to have somebody close to you and love you. But I grieve inside because I feel we are opening the doors to Sodom and Gomorra. And in the end, God is going to be the judge," said Nelson, of Blaine, tears running down her cheeks.

― jay-z's ansari (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 13 May 2013 22:31 (1 week ago) Permalink

Guys. My ears hurt sooooooooooooooo bad right now.

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Monday, 13 May 2013 22:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

you're doing it wrong

― UTW, USA, ILX LIFER (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 14 May 2013 16:16 (1 week ago) Permalink

were they chanting "The people united / Will not be put asunder"?

I have a photo of me on that MST set, marrying no one.

― ballin' from Maine to Mexico (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 May 2013 16:25 (1 week ago) Permalink

I'll say this: the crowd ran through their entire songbook in far less than the four or five hours they were amassed.

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Tuesday, 14 May 2013 17:12 (1 week ago) Permalink

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/george-takei-responds-to-traditional-marriage-fans

looooove this

― the Quim of Bendigo (Autumn Almanac), Monday, 20 May 2013 03:54 (4 days ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.