BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:21 PM

Thanks again Emma, but it appears from what you havequoted, that both church's discouraged "mixed marriage" principly as a means of retaining their followers, making their actions political rather than theological?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM

I'll accept 'political' with a small p ake but thought you were using it in combination with gerrymandering as it was practiced in the six counties in combination with a first past the post voting system and redefined constituency boundaries.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:48 PM

It was racism, Ake. A blind hatred of something too different from oneself to tolerate.

Intolerance toward other human beings, their races, their genders, their preference sin private affairs, is the root of much human misery. It is, itself, a sort of festering disease of the spirit, IMHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:40 AM

I'm not going to spend much time with this one, other than to give a brief account on marriage. Basically, when a man and woman, make public announcement that they shall be joined together in marriage, it had the attached understanding, and formalized by both church and state, that these two were joined, together, for the bearing of offspring, and everybody else was to have hands off. It came down that, certain disciplines, were employed, because the family was held sacred, and the bond, for that reason was recognized, and respected. All living things on this planet have two things in common: The will to survive, and reproduce...anything that gets in the way of that, and hinders surviving, and/or reproducing is actually a form of death. Marriage, between a man and woman, was,and is recognized, institution of that. (though there are people who marry, and having children is not part of their particular program) Though the mores,and values have changed, the institution of marriage was for the above said purpose. If people want to have the same rights as marriage, they should also recognize that those rights were institutionalized, for the REASON of marriage(as said above). Now if people want to 'enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but their reason is to accommodate their lifestyle, of choice, then perhaps they would, should or could, try calling it something else, as to, differentiate, what their lifestyle is, which is other than what the already established, institution is about.
Do they have a right?? Legally, they can do what they want. Morally? Well, that is dictated by the morals, of acceptability, within the society, which also incorporates the spiritual aspect of religion, as being a part of society. For those who want recognition in the religious community for their lifestyle, and call the church narrow minded, and stupid, that is pretty arrogant, yourself. After all, when someone in a church whips out their Bible, and shows you, that 'it says right here....etc..'I doubt the same scripture doesn't include the phrase 'except for you'. That is their belief, and no, they don't have to change it, to accommodate you! You think their silly....they think you're silly. Get over it!
Now, let's take it a step further....Two guys move into a place together, and they are not sexually active with each other, nor with anyone of the same sex, ok?..Do they have the right to claim 'same sex marriage' so to collect the benefits, that claiming that, would afford them???
If another 'designation of status' is made to accommodate homosexuals, then that is the designation for that situation..marriage is not that situation. Perhaps they'll come up with something else...ok?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:36 AM

Well said guest, and if your thoughts could be put into practice the problem would disappear.

Unfortunately, to a large section of homosexuals, the word is what matters, not equal rights under the law.
Nothing will satisfy them but the re-definition of marriage to suit their agenda.   As I said on another thread, we all have some sort of agenda, but cannot expect our newly aquired rights to "trump" the traditional rights of others, no matter how vociferous we become

"The ruling said that Islington council "placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief".

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:25 AM

"As long as there are registrars available who aren't so fussy, it shouldn't be a problem.

These allowances for religious distaste for perfectly legal activities become a problem when no other service is available."

I disagree. As a civil servant, you can't pick and choose which bits of your job you want to do. You have certain duties, and it is your job to uphold them.

Civil partnersghip is NOT a religious ceremony, and issues of religion should be utterly irrelevant.

I don't like the idea of my taxes facilitating institutionalised prejudice. Civil partnership is now a fact of life in the UK. If there are registrars who feel they cannot perform the ceremony, maybe they should have thought about other career options in the many months leading up to the legalisation of civil partnership. I believe most councils offer re-deployment schemes.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:56 AM

'The Civil Partnership Act (CPA) came into force on 5th December 2005. It enables same-sex couples to register their partnerships.
It creates a new legal relationship - that of a civil partnership - but it is NOT a marriage.

During the genesis of CPA 2004, some commentators suggested that, far from alleviating discrimination against the gay and lesbian community, it would solidify and legitimize discrimination.
The complaint was that the law does not place civil partnerships on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage and that creating civil partnerships reinforces and perpetuates discrimination.'

Source: New Law Journal

I agree with Ruth's sentiments; I was personally married in a civil ceremony because I am not a believer in any Christian religion and religion didn't, and shouldn't, play any part in a civil union IMO

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:36 AM

This is the wording of the "Defense of Marriage" amendment to the Michigan State Constitution:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

It isn't aimed at seeing that same-sex unions aren't called marriage; it is aimed at denying any legal recognition whatever to same-sex couples. The proponents of the act said it would not deny dependent benefits to same-sex partners. I said it would. The resultant court cases I know of so far are aimed at preventing taxpayer supported institutions from paying partner benefits; I fully expect someone to push for criminalisation of the payment of partner benefits by private employers.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:20 AM

It seems the dark cancer of intolerance of difernetness is deeper running than I wouild have thought.

While it is nice to say that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation, the sad truth is it ALSO exists for political purposes, monetary gain, protection of weakenesses, access to property, and other reasons.

IF you are focusing purely on the individual's postulated couplehood, then the shape of their underpinnings really doesn't have a lot to do with it. Nor should it have any bearing in law, as such.

THe issues that DO have bearing in law reasonably include the legal status of couplehood in terms of social contracts such as insurance, inheritance, and the other benefits of joint life. But none of these issues attached to the notion of marriage have much if anything to do with reproduction. Well, except for "dependents" exceptions in tax codes.

As for the sanctity of reproduction, I would submit that is a belief whose expiration date has comne, considering it has driven us over the 6 billion mark.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:23 AM

OK, Guest from Sanity, if I, being over 60 and infertile, wish to marry in order to ''enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but [my] reason is to accommodate [my] lifestyle', but being by reason of my age and cancer-induced infertility incapable of reproduction, then according to your reasoning, I should not be allowed to marry.   No love, no companionship, no mutual support, if I can't have children I can't marry.

Funny idea of Sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:04 PM

In reply to the question of procreation and marriage I have attended emotionally moving and loving ceremonies where older people have been married in church with the 'tactful' removal of those lines from the 'standard' ceremony .

I would like to pose a question to some folks here however about the refusal to contract a civil union on the grounds of 'religious belief 'by a civil servant.

Some churches still regard the 'divine standard' for marriage as lifelong commitment to one's spouse, and nothing else; even though divorce was permitted in some cases under the Old Testament economy

Assuming that one spouse abandons the other is the 'innocent party' to be denied the opportunity for remarriage and the possibility of family life in the eyes of their God and even the state?
If their church refuses to marry them (as may indeed occur) is it acceptable that a registrar should also discriminate against their civil union for 'religious' reasons?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM

Perhaps you missed this the first time, of skimming it, and not comprehending it. "Marriage, between a man and woman, was,and is recognized, institution of that. (though there are people who marry, and having children is not part of their particular program) Though the mores,and values have changed, the institution of marriage was for the above said purpose. If people want to have the same rights as marriage, they should also recognize that those rights were institutionalized, for the REASON of marriage(as said above). Now if people want to 'enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but their reason is to accommodate their lifestyle, of choice, then perhaps they would, should or could, try calling it something else, as to, differentiate, what their lifestyle is, which is other than what the already established, institution is about."

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:41 PM

' the institution of marriage was for the above said purpose'

'Perhaps you missed this the first time, of skimming it, and not comprehending it.' - no I didn't and I resent your (usual) patronizing condescension.

'In fact, there is surprisingly little discussion in the Hebrew or New Testament scriptures about what a marriage actually is.
A search for the words 'marriage', 'marry' or 'wife' in the Bible yield numerous verses. Yet virtually none of these discusses exactly what a marriage is

There are cases where the emphasis is on making sure the Israelites do not marry foreigners such as in Nehemiah 13:27 "Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?

There are also instances where a marriage is seen as a way of forming alliances as in 2 Chronicles 18:1

Leviticus 18:18 instructs men that "you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive."

In the vast majority of cases where it is discussed in the Hebrew scriptures marriage is presented as a rather one-sided transaction. Daughters are usually seen as objects 'given' in marriage by their fathers. Genesis 34:21 states "let us take their daughters in marriage, and let us give them our daughters". '


'Though the mores,and values have changed....' yes they have !

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:44 PM

Since, in about half the cases, marriage is merely a prerequisite for divorce, I fail to see what the fuss is about.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:51 PM

Emma, I have an appointment right now, but when I return, I'll give you some of the scriptures you omitted, The ones Christians usually come up with. But, it is very clear, that in Judeo-Christian beliefs, that homosexuality is a no-no, based on the text in their scripture. I didn't make it up..its plainly there. Will post it for you when I return.

P.S. I also mentioned that I really didn't want to spend much time on this subject, but for you....I will, just for clarification purposes. Ok?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM

Can I ask whether scripture is really relevant to this debate? As I pointed out earlier:

1. a civil partnership is NOT a religious ceremony

2. The person in question was not a religious celebrant, she was a civil servant employed to carry out, among other things, civil partnerships.

3. Whether you personally agree with homosexual civil partnership is completely irrelevant - it is enshrined in British law. This person was employed to do a job of work. If someone's religion prevents them from doing their job, they should be doing a different job.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:16 PM

Ruth, Being as I am not a citizen of the U.K, I find it inappropiate for me, to comment in the ins and outs of the hiring practices of British or U.K. law. ..Respectfully, Gfs

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:23 PM

Thank you Ruth I feared that GfS had not 'comprehended' my previous post.

Please spare me any further 'clarification' GfS - I'm out of this thread

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:29 PM

DNA Chimera criminals would make a nice touch to some murder mysteries.

As for same old sex marriages, if there is something new please pass it on.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:50 PM

Being as the scripture issue, is behind us(which I was merely answering a question, and I wasn't the one who originally brought it up), I'd like to clarify and point out, that there is a difference in an 'opinion' , based on an emotional response, a position, based on 'political correctness', and a definition, based on the meaning of terms or words. The post I gave was a definition. Based on just the definition, 'same sex marriage' doesn't make sense. A re-defining of terms would, as I posted, would better serve the matter. If one were to say the sky is 'blue', should we change that attribute and truth, because the other colors of the spectrum in the rainbow 'feel' discriminated against? if there is any doubt about it...the sky is blue, rain is wet, the sun appears to be yellow from here, rainbows are multi-colored, and marriage is marriage(a man and a woman). If homosexuals, wish another sort of union, with different attributes, then call it whatever it is..but marriage it is not!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:59 PM

GfromS-
What the hell has scripture to do with civil rights? If "civil union" conveyed the same legal rights and privileges as "marriage", the discussion would be a quibble over words. It doesn't and it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 12:04 AM

Dick, The question of scriptures was posed to me, from another post. If you would have read earlier my post, that she was referring to, you'd see that I was very objective about the two, and the distinction of legal, as part, and those who have religious issues, as part, of society,with it. Please try not to misquote me, then champion what you thought I said. She is the one who posted several scriptures, that were also out of context, of which, I sorta let go by. It wasn't the issue, of topic, that I was dealing with, or even talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:02 PM

The attitudes and opinions of a bunch of pre-historic agrarian Palestinians, Israelites, Canaanites, and Moabites, etc., has about as much bearing on these issues as the opinion of WIle E. Coyote.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:16 PM

Rosie O'Donnel's gay cruise ship docked in town (Saint John, N.B.) last week ... about a dozen couples took the opportunity of our Canadian liberal (civilized) laws to wed here. The city even presented a commerative plaque to the newly weds.

Here's a CBC article on it ....

kudos to Saint John !!


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 04:48 AM

"Rosie O'Donnel's Gay Cruise Ship".....Now that's a phrase that conjures up both hilarity, and how far we have declined, as a civilization. The "H.M.S. Rolling Rollicking Roger"...When I think of it, I couldn't blast it loud enough..."Get Real!!!!....Get Real, Seriously!!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 10:07 AM

I truly feel for the couples you supposedly counsel.

biLL, thanks for that! Kudos to St. John, indeed!!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:04 AM

I agree Guest....kinda puts me in mind of the last days of Rome!
Or is it the lunatics taking over the asylum?

Problem is, the whole subject has become so politically charged.
"You can't be a real leftie unless you agree with homosexual marriage"......Its absolute madness, ones political ideology and views on sexual matters should never be mixed.

You just keep doin' your stuff, you have helped to resuscitate the dormant brains of Mudcat....good on you!....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:47 AM

...ones political ideology and views on sexual matters should never be mixed.

Ake, if only the Republicans(US) believed that!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:50 AM

Ones personal views on 'sexual matters' should not be imposed on others who don't share your viewpoint either ....or at least that's what my professional counselling course taught!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 04:15 PM

...And what do you base yours on???...Feelings?????????

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 05:16 PM

I hear what you say Kat, but the "Liberal Left", who are in the main a bunch of hypocrits, push minority agendas for all they are worth, without regard for the opinions of others.

This is very well illustrated by many of the posts here.
Some of the most vicious statments have been made by so called "Liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 05:19 PM

Sorry that was my post.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 05:42 PM

A marriage license DOES NOT require the couple to have sex, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not

actually, John, it is a concern of the State, or at least the branch of the State represented by the Department of Immigration.

I can still remember the sense of shock and disbelief I felt when asked by an immigration officer at my final interview "So, has the marriage been consummated ?"

My initial reaction was to ask him if he wanted a tally, but I contented myself with a simple "Yes " ...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:10 PM

AKe:

I am seriously missing something here. In what way is anything "imposed" on you if Rick and Robert want to swear life-long togetherness and make a civil condition out of it?

Are you required to attend? Watch the festivities? IS your mind so out of control that the thought makes you imagine things you find disgusting against your will? How does it add the slightest jot to your burden to grant tolerance to individual choices in private matters?
And if you think sexual preference is not a private matter, why are you prying into it when it should be a private matter?

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: fumblefingers
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:43 PM

Marriage, as an arrangement between a man and a woman, has been around for thousands of years and is practiced globally. To redefine it just because homosexuals demand it is not a good enough reason for most folks in the world. If; however, the homosexual lobby can convince the entire world to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships and redefine buggery as normal, then I'll accept it too.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 12:42 AM

I am a liberal. SO, I guess I can say Fuck Off and be typical...but what's the use.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 01:04 AM

2 males can kill each other in the heat of war and that is acceptable ... 2 males fall in love and marry ... and that is not?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:28 AM

We've all started to repeat ourselves, so I suppose we will never agree on this subject.
I think this has been an excellent discussion, and hope reason, not any particular opinion, has been the winner......Thanks all... Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 08:02 AM

Akenaton: Politically charged??...Who me?????(laughing me arse off). I was thinkin' the political stuff is coming from the same ones who let the political people do their thinkin' for them!!!..Mine(and yours) are just common horse sense...(none of that with the politicos!!)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 01:20 PM

I love this comment quoted by katlaughing on another thread :)

'There is just as much horse sense as ever, but the horses have most of it'

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 01:29 PM

Can't make a distinction between biology and doctrine? You guys need to get out more if you really think of your somewhat blinkered narrow field of view as "common sense".

We're not talking about the biology of honmosexuality, but of civil rights and what they should comprise. Marriage is not a biological state. To the degree it is sometimes a natural state, it needs no regulation. To the degree it is regulated, it is an artifact of civic agreement, part of a code of rights, priveleges and protocols.

Denying those rights to some members based on apredilection for heterosecuality makes no logical sense, but reflects only the bias of those who have no understanding of the other half. As a reward for your narrow-mindedness, I wish for you that your children, like Cheney's daughter, come to you to announce they are gay.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:22 PM

"As a reward for your narrow-mindedness, I wish for you that your children, like Cheney's daughter, come to you to announce they are gay."

Well Amos, you make that sound as if it would be some sort of punishment......perhaps you are not as unbiased as you try to portray.

If any of my boys came and told me that they were homosexual, I know for a fact that I would love them no less.
I'm sorry I had to respond to your remark Amos, I had you down for a bigger man than that. Your remark had absolutely nothing to do with the issue we have been discussing....It was cheap and nasty.

However I still think you're a decent guy underneath....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:42 PM

Ake:

Well, suppose one did, and you, rightfully and manfully, loved him none the less.

Would the civic benefits of a life-long commitment to a partner then seem to you wrong for him to receive from the community? I mean simply the usual legal benefits--insurance and mutual representation and so on -- that are the civic implications of the married state. Why would that seem wrong?

Pardon me if I seemed a little angry; these people who yell into tunnels about the world being tunnel-shaped sometimes get on my nerves. I did not mean it as a punishment, but as an invitation to imagine a different point of view.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 04:14 PM

It's OK Amos. Iknow very well what you were trying to do and it was quite unworthy of you.
I may be uneducated, but I am not unintelligent.

Whether or not my son was homosexual, would have no bearing on my views regarding the issues discussed here.

Attempts have been made from the start of this thread, to turn the discussion into a personal slanging match. I have tried to avoid this throughout and keep the discussion objective.

As I said earlier, it has been a good discussion, many views aired in a (mainly) reasonable manner. Thank you for starting the thread and as you started it, I feel it's only fair that you should have the "last word" ............Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 06:50 PM

"Whether or not my son was homosexual, would have no bearing on my views regarding the issues discussed here."

"If any of my boys came and told me that they were homosexual, I know for a fact that I would love them no less."

??

Sorry, Ake, this is not an attempt to take a shot at you personally. But as a father myself, I'm just trying to reconcile these two comments.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 03:00 AM

Maybe you just don't know what love means Don.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 09:23 AM

Whooof!!

Seems to me plain as pie that you would not stand for the basic civil right of loving partnership to be denied.

So I think the point has some bearing.

Society is not a reproductive machine in its first purpose. Life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness are closer to our formaticve goals. Why is, then, one branch of happiness to be blessed, and another which has no less good to impart, and brings no more and often less harm, to be denied? Seems awful lopsided to me.

One may dislike the fact that some members of our species are geared to same-sex relations instead of hetero relations, but that is a fact to be faced, not a wish to be unwished. It's a given. Why discriminate against it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 01:43 PM

...Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are closer to our formative goals. ....Well I guess homosexuality brings forth a lot of life, eh, Amos???
Neither, does it come from happiness.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 02:39 PM

Your opinions about where it comes from are your own, GFS, not anything binding or even empirical, as far as I can see. ANd your sarcasm about the defining boundaries of the social contract would do better if you replaced them with some of your actual, and often scinitllating, intelligence.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 03:05 PM

Huh???