Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3144 of them)
I'm Scottish, Chantel - I'm well aware there are other parts to the UK. Nevertheless, the Queen is Queen of Scotland too. She is also head of the Church of England.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:53 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Okay Chantel, we are all scared of those weird terrorist Muslims and afraid they will send Cat Stevens out to get us. Happy now?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:57 (thirteen 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.

There's no real reason why the french *have* to give it a different name, though, other than to pander to homophobia. After all, in France, religious marriages are not considered legally valid, and haven't been since the 19th century. So why - considering that all couples who want a religious wedding in France aren't legally married unless they have a civil wedding as well - is there a need to differ between a marriage and a civil pact?

caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Oh my God! She wants FRANCE to decide what's best for us!

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:56 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

How did this thread get so derailed?

J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Three guesses, dude.

One of the guilty (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

-- James R. (jgw...), November 4th, 2004 10:51 AM. (later) link)

And what a great idea this would be, except there are so many fundies who would call you a secular humanist and try to mandate teacher-led in-school prayer for your sins and then they'd bash you over the head with that big stone copy of the ten commandments they've been hanging in the courtrooms.

J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

We should enact a bunch of laws based on the more ludicrous sections of Deuteronomy.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Ban those shrimp now!

caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Going back to near-relevance: my wedding had absolutely no connection with any religion. We were married by a notary.

What I'm wondering - when did it become legal (in the US and/or the UK) to marry without religious supervision? That is, when did civil marriage - by a judge, notary, or what have you - become recognized? Was it controversial?

Are people who were not married by clergy considered "not really married" by some?

Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Search for "sexual immorality" in the bible too. Consider if homosexuality is classified under that in a lot of places too.

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"can those in the 'anti' camp please stop quoting 'the bible' in relation to this subject, because it doesn't sound like you've actually read it, and it isn't doing you any favours."

I'm not saying I'm in the anti-camp, but if you want to understand the intelligent side of the anti-camp your best bet is to research where they are coming from. A lot of them get their position from the bible. Ignore it if you want to just blindly oppose them without understanding them, and that will get your agenda no where.

and your stuff about Jesus is cute. Don't forget about him crying too.

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Uh, I don't think they really get that position from the Bible, man. They get from sweaty guys in suits who told them it was in the Bible.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_l.htm#menu

J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

there IS stuff in the bible that frowns upon homosexuality, although it's not really any more vociferous than injunctions against gambling and lying and stuff. which gives rise to my opinion that this isn't really about the bible at all, or even religion--although religion provides a *necessary* pretext.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

or maybe it is about religion, and not about the bible. the bible's relationship to christianity is not very straightforward. different aspects and interpretations seize the christian imagination at different times. see also: all monotheistic religions.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well, there is stuff in the Old Testament, the law of which was fulfilled at Christ's resurrection. This is why Christians eat pork, for example - such laws are irrelevant, and Christ redifined a new moral law, which was the ten commandments plus love thy neighbour. Homosexuality is only mentioned once in the NT, in Romans I, in kind of a vague rambling way. Western society has had taboos against sexuality, but it hasn't used the bible for their justification - they were taken as self-evident. Now that is being questioned the religious right has decided the message of Christianity is contained in one nonsense and demonstratably false rambling of St. Paul.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This whole issue of gay marriage really depresses me. I really thought homophobia was a thing of the past.

daavid (daavid), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That shoulld be homosexuality, not sexuality - though the latter is also true, but to a lesser extent. (x-posts)

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:17 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This is a wild idea, but maybe some are afraid that allowing same-sex unions would be one step closer to legalizing pedophilia or beastiality.

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:19 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"maybe"? some people have explicitly said this.

see nabisco's point on my "why do people hate 'the homosexuals' so much" thread.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:21 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Homophobics have always mashed homosexuality and paedophilia together.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:22 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

With sexy results!

sorry! (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:23 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the word is "homophobes"--"homophobics" sounds like some form of alternative medicine. or a reading aid.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

and probably a lot of people opposed to same-sex unions are not homophobes

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

one is a policy the other is personal

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:27 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That's a tenuous position, A Nairn; I can see arguing that same-sex unions are not marriages based on (I believe tenuous) religious grounds but across-board opposition to even secular unions? That's some serious stone-casting.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:28 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I don't know where 'homophobics' came from. Very odd. that maybe true, A Nairn - those who think a legalisation of same sex union will lead to a legalisation of paedophilia probably are. And I can't think of a reason beyond homophobia for banning gay marriage.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:28 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

we're going in circles

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It's like a dream come true
Theorise
Come Alive
Through and through
It just goes to show
Take a chance
If you're ready
Let everything flow
Each and every one of us
Can talk in circles
Yeah each and every one of us
Will walk in circles
It's all you'll ever need
Chorus 1:
Why do we idolize it
(It's all you'll ever need)
If you can't justify it?
(It's all you'll ever need)
I'm bedazzled
By the answers that unravelled
That were fantasized
There's no single disposition
On the planet
Just the colours that collide
Yeah each and every one of us
Can talk in circles
Yeah each and every one of us
Will walk in circles
It's all you'll ever need
Chorus 1:
Why do we idolize it
If you can't justify it?
Why do we idolize it
If you can't justify it?
Get ready to go
Come on let's pick up speed
It's all in the mind
It's all you ever need
It's all you ever need

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

and probably a lot of people opposed to same-sex unions are not homophobes

They're either homophobes or they profoundly misunderstand the church/state nature of the argument.

Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:33 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

People keep saying odd things! That's where the circles come from.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:33 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

dan those are the worst lyrics ever. where are they from?

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

:....-(

"Circles" - Meat Beat Manifesto

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

We should enact a bunch of laws based on the more ludicrous sections of Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 23 to thread, pls.

don weiner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:57 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

yes?

Deuteronomy 23, Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Doesn't Leviticus have something to say regarding homosexuality too?

Slept at Sunday School (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop."

OTM. i love you alex.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

in a totally heterosexual way of course.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

ok, a non-homophobe intelligent conservative Christian may think along these lines

1 - I should love my neighbor as myself.
2 - When I am at a fault it would be best for others to rebuke me with the truths of scripture.
3 - So, loving my neighbor would entail rebuking them with the truths of scripture (as the bible often tells to do, and in a gentle manner).
4 - Scripture makes known the wrongness of homosexuality
5 - I should vote aginst a law that would give the impression that the government encourages (or does not discourage in anyway) a same-sex relationship

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I hate gay marriage, and so does my wife Frank.

Fred Beetle Barnes, Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:43 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

2 - When I am at a fault it would be best for others to rebuke me with the truths of scripture

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

4 - Scripture makes known the wrongness of homosexuality

No, we've been through this.

5 - I should vote aginst a law that would give the impression that the government encourages (or does not discourage in anyway) a same-sex relationship

This is where the invalis jump is made. (even if we assume the other premises, which I feel are false). 'Rebuking' and pointing out someone's sins is not the same as coercing them with force, as the law would entail. Also, the idea that morally wrong = illegal is nonsense. Adultery is legal. Lying is legal. etc. etc.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 00:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

2 - rebuking in truth of scripture would not be considered "casting a stone". The bible says this in many places and it may seem like a contradiciton to many people, but there is a difference.

4 - Many of them see this in the scripture. Like I said earlier it would be under the "sexual immorality" label

5 - This is too where I agree their easist to contest fault may be, but what they are concerned with is not coercing with force but rather not having the government endorse it.

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"What's wrong with America today, pt 23222: Why do people think they must be personally endorsing something if they don't outlaw it?

oops (Oops), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I really thought homophobia was a thing of the past.

Good heavens. You seriously thought this?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

rebuking in truth of scripture would not be considered "casting a stone".

Yes it would. Christ was comforting those who scripture condemned, and protecting them from the indignation of those who seek to dish out God's Law. He comforts adultresses, prostitutes etc.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:19 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

yeah, but at this point it would seem that turning over outlawing it would be like endorsing it. And isn't marriage something directly endorsed by the government?

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:20 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(xxpost)

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:20 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

there is a shortage of love in this world, if two individuals want to make a public statement of their feelings for each other by getting married i think that's great and their sexuality is completely irrelevant, we should do all we can to respect and value their wishes. that's my opinion.

also, apart from the general homophobia issue, i heard in an interview on the radio yesterday (i.e. i don't know the veracity of the statement) that some US states have gone further with their referenda and are in fact considering excluding homosexual relationships from other benefits, such as caring benefits and superannuation and insurance. which will eventually place an increased cost on a welfare system under great pressure. that's not cool either if you ask me.

this stuff makes me feel a bit queasy about the world we are living in.

gem (trisk), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't want to get into any tedious theology debate here (at least not now)

but there is a difference between "letting oneself be used by God to gently let someone else realise their fault" vs. "Thinking oneself is better than someone else and looking down on them; judging them" (in action they may appear very similar, but in motive they are opposite)
In the case of stoning the prostitute, Jesus was speaking to the second group.


This is the kind of thought that needs to be examined to see how to get your agenda across (to the non-homophobe intelligent conservative Christian). Just saying, "that kind of thought is religious and wrong" will get no where.

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So what are the chances that these gay marriage bans will be thrown out for being unconstitutional (since they seem to interfere with freedom of religion).

Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:51 (thirteen years ago) Permalink


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