Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3140 of them)
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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

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

you first 'Chantel'

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

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.

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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve years ago) Permalink

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

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

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

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

Dan Perry - Spawn of England!

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

Her Majesty is proud.

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

Kneel before his er hrm ah er munificence.

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

more like teh nude duke of edinburgh

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

Chantel, Hooked On Phonics might work for you.

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

tolerant and fluffy?

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

The Passion of the Snuggle Bear.

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

The day that the US and Britain become Islamic societies is the day that your objection to this thread makes sense, Chantel, just to spell it out for you.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:50 (twelve years ago) Permalink

BBritain is a Christian country? When did this become official? As in the WHOLE of Britain? All of it Christian too?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

You are a gigantic moron.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I'm not the moron saying the UK is a Christian country.

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Basic logic would tell you that saying Britain is not an Islamic society does not imply that Britain is a Christian society.

You don't know this because you are a moron.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

attacking fluffy things is definitely unacceptable!!!! leave the furry bunnies alone!

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:01 (twelve years ago) Permalink

lol

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 22:32 (one year ago) Permalink

so there's bumpkins with leaky brains actually protesting outside the Judge's house, asking the sheriff to take him to jail.

this would be the conservative Judge who likely doesn't agree with the SCOTUS ruling himself but understands how the law works.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Wednesday, 9 September 2015 04:19 (one year ago) Permalink

Madonna's brother has opinions:

"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," Christopher Ciccone, who is gay, wrote in a Facebook post. "The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:15 (one year ago) Permalink

the right to inform her deputies to put themselves at legal risk and not issue marriage licenses

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:18 (one year ago) Permalink

When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!

Aimless, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:11 (one year ago) Permalink

like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.

― Οὖτις, Friday, September 4, 2015 3:07 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is... complicated? there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs." not to mention people working in a fundamentally unjust or murderous system, like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.

it's not davis's unwillingness to "do her job" that makes her wrong IMO, it's the nature of what she will and won't do. the biggest problem is simply that she cites her religious beliefs, nothing more or less, in rationalizing her unwillingness to perform her duties. that makes her stance conflict with what judges have, for a long time now, considered a basic principle of the rule of law.

but in any case this is all a sideshow. the more compelling fact, IMO, is how many state, county, and other officials--who may disagree with the supreme court ruling and/or may hold deep-seated prejudices against gays and lesbians--are going along with the ruling. they amount to a consensus, which the media focus on davis obscures. so really, we should be celebrating. (though i admit it's somehow both angering and deeply satisfying to contemplate the awesome ignorance of davis and those who have rallied to her.)

wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:37 (one year ago) Permalink

there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs."

I don't see how this is relevant or analogous, really

like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.

Similarly these were regimes/instances of the gov't acting in an explicitly illegal manner, the rule of law had gone out the window (again, not the case here, much as Davis' supporters would suggest otherwise. There has been no coup, no agency acting beyond its legal bounds)

and I didn't say it was her unwillingness to do her job that makes her wrong, it's her insistence that it is simultaneously her right to HAVE that job AND not do it.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:55 (one year ago) Permalink

but the Nuremberg Laws were, ah, the law!

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:57 (one year ago) Permalink

are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um

Οὖτις, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:59 (one year ago) Permalink

since the fucks at the supreme court gave these morons an inch with the hobby lobby decision

When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!

― Aimless, Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 10 September 2015 23:22 (one year ago) Permalink

are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um

― Οὖτις, Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:59 PM

No, because Chris Ciccone can explain it better.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 September 2015 00:33 (one year ago) Permalink

Kim Davis basically now attempting to vanish in a puff of smoke after realizing a week later she didn't actually win. lol

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 22:31 (one year ago) Permalink

She staunchly asserted that marriage licenses not signed off by her personally are invalid, but if someone wanted to test that assertion in court, who would have standing to challenge the validity of the licenses?

Aimless, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:33 (one year ago) Permalink

Jesus

Οὖτις, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (one year ago) Permalink

her and her lawyers assert that. the judge in question and attorney general have politely said that claim is horseshit.

but essentially what it boils down is, her deputies are now issuing marriage certificates and they don't have her name on it. Isn't that what she wanted? Naw, she wanted no licenses going out at all, and just used the whole "oh my dear personal freedoms" as the excuse.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (one year ago) Permalink

lol

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (one year ago) Permalink

is someone going to explain the separation of church and state to them

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:01 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Hey, if you ignore decades of Supreme Court case law, or the secondary intent of the Establishment clause, you can say things like "omg the separation of church and state doesn't even appear in the Constitution" and fool yourself for most of your lifetime.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 21 September 2015 23:27 (one year ago) Permalink

seven months pass...

Harris Wofford, eh?

we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, 25 April 2016 12:00 (seven months ago) Permalink


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