Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2806 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

Dan Perry - Spawn of England!

adam... (nordicskilla), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

Her Majesty is proud.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:36 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

Kneel before his er hrm ah er munificence.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:38 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

more like teh nude duke of edinburgh

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:41 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, Hooked On Phonics might work for you.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

tolerant and fluffy?

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

The Passion of the Snuggle Bear.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:49 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

You are a gigantic moron.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:54 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

well done Scotland. better late than never.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25960225

i lost my shoes on acid (jed_), Tuesday, 4 February 2014 22:06 (2 months ago) Permalink

FYI Scotland have legalised gay marriage to alfred.

i lost my shoes on acid (jed_), Tuesday, 4 February 2014 22:31 (2 months ago) Permalink

Interesting Nevada news:

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, in a motion filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Nevada's legal arguments defending the voter-approved prohibition aren't viable after the court's recent ruling that potential jurors cannot be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.

"After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable," Masto said in a statement.

Nevada's move comes as the federal government and courts around the country in recent months have chipped away at laws the prohibit marriage and benefits for same-sex couples. In a one-month span from December to January, two federal judges struck down state bans on gay marriage for the same reason, concluding that they violate the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican seeking re-election this year, said he agreed with the Democratic attorney general's action.

"Based upon the advice of the attorney general's office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court," Sandoval said in an email to The Associated Press.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 02:07 (2 months ago) Permalink

Man, my "but we're really running out of likely states" post from last November is just looking more and more quaint every day. Keep 'em coming!

Doctor Casino, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 04:41 (2 months ago) Permalink

Kansas House passes bill that would allow service refusal to same-sex couples on religious grounds

“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”

|$̲̅(̲̅ιοο̲̅)̲̅$̲̅| (gr8080), Wednesday, 12 February 2014 02:30 (2 months ago) Permalink

Kansas politician stands up for enormously unpopular version of Christianity among Kansans, bravely risks the backlash.

Aimless, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 02:37 (2 months ago) Permalink

In contrast to which, in Virginia:

https://twitter.com/AGMarkHerring/status/434157953944276992

*ALERT* Equality marches forward in VA: Federal judge declares state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. Issues stay pending appeal.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 14 February 2014 03:19 (2 months ago) Permalink

Virginia goes down, partially thanks to Nino.

So rare to see this kind of unity in any anti-conservative movement; it's like the liberal think tank of The Corner's dreams really did conference call every federal judge and say, "You will cite Antonin Scalia's dissent in Windsor and aggravate Rush Limbaugh."

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 February 2014 17:54 (2 months ago) Permalink

As of Wednesday, incremental progress in Kentucky, my state of origin: while the ban on gay marriage remains in effect, state government is required to recognize marriages conducted in other states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kentucky-must-recognize-gay-marriages-from-other-states-federal-judge-rules/2014/02/12/8ec79508-9410-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/12/kentucky_gay_marriage_scalia_would_hate_this_ruling.html

one way street, Sunday, 16 February 2014 18:51 (2 months ago) Permalink

Scaliamania sweeps the federal judiciary.

Aimless, Sunday, 16 February 2014 19:47 (2 months ago) Permalink

Meantime if you haven't laughed at Erick Erickson lately, enjoy the self-applied Gordian knot:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/21/yes-jesus-would-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-person/

Ned Raggett, Friday, 21 February 2014 23:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

And just now in Texas:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ban-on-gay-marriage-ruled-unconstitutional-5270099.php

As with Virginia, stay in place.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 19:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/7678/methodists_make_history__or__an_argument_for_ecclesiastical_disobedience/

“Biblical obedience demands ecclesiastical disobedience”

j., Tuesday, 11 March 2014 22:22 (1 month ago) Permalink

lol protestantism

goole, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 20:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/04/judge-to-declare-ohios-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

^^^ a bit misleading headline-wise - the ruling apparently will deal only with the refusal to recognize gay marriages from other states, but still!

Doctor Casino, Friday, 4 April 2014 18:29 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/patriciamiller/7756/ohio_catholic_school_teachers_required_to_sign_morality_clause/

The contracts instruct employees to refrain from “conduct or lifestyle that’s in contradiction to Catholic doctrine or morals,” including:

improper use of social media/communication, public support of or publicly living together outside marriage, public support of or sexual activity out of wedlock, public support of or homosexual lifestyle, public support of or use of abortion, public support of or use of a surrogate mother, public support of or use of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, public membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals, and/or flagrant deceit or dishonesty.”

so if you live/sleep together outside of marriage, make sure you have an actual shack to do it in, so no one will be the wiser

j., Friday, 4 April 2014 22:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink


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