Same-sex Marriage

[jammy 0]

Same-sex marriage is currently one of the world's human rights issues which comes with a wide variety of dates with routes in education, religion, civil/human rights and many more.

I would like to know what people's general standpoints are on this issue, with backing and reasoning for your opinions and reasoning.

Of course this will remain completely civil.

Countries that allow gay marriage (and the year in are):

2001 - Netherlands

2003 - Belgium

2005 - Canada

2005 - Spain

2006 - South Africa

2009 - Sweden

2009 - Norway

2010 - Portugal

2010 - Argentina

2010 - Iceland (Iceland also has the first openly gay leader)

Mexico City (Mexico) as well as Connecticut, Washington DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire & Vermont have all also legalized gay marriage.

Many other countries, including Brazil, Germany, UK, Franc and Colombia also allow civil unions between homosexual couples, a phase often gone through before allowing same-sex marriage.

So, what are your thoughts and opinions?

  Edited June 18, 2011 by jammy  

[s.i.X 13]

Same-sex marriage is currently one of the world's most challenged problems

Really? I can think of dozens of more pressing issues than same-sex marriage. But I live in a country that legalized it years ago.

[jammy 0]

Same-sex marriage is currently one of the world's most challenged problems

Really? I can think of dozens of more pressing issues than same-sex marriage. But I live in a country that legalized it years ago.

I was struggling to introduce it. I have edited it to make it more appropriate. Which country do you live in out of interest? I know there is a difference between the legal status and the actual tolerance of the issue. South Africa have legalized same-sex marriage but the majority disapprove.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Maybe some nice moderator would merge this with the Closet thread?

[Duke87 1,070]

The state has no business marrying anyone. They ought to give "civil unions" to all couples, same or opposite sex, and just leave "marriage" as a religious and/or social concept rather than a legal one. This way everyone is equal under the law, and at the same time religious groups can't complain that "marriage" is being destroyed.

...of course, in reality, this is a compromise, not an "everyone's happy" solution. Plenty of people specifically want to see the religious concept of marriage destroyed, and plenty of people don't want same sex couples to have equal rights under the law.

[s.i.X 13]

Same-sex marriage is currently one of the world's most challenged problems

Really? I can think of dozens of more pressing issues than same-sex marriage. But I live in a country that legalized it years ago.

I was struggling to introduce it. I have edited it to make it more appropriate. Which country do you live in out of interest? I know there is a difference between the legal status and the actual tolerance of the issue. South Africa have legalized same-sex marriage but the majority disapprove.

I'm in Canada, and most people here have moved past the whole issue. I think about 60% of Canadians support it now.

[astronelson 339]

Maybe some nice moderator would merge this with the Closet thread?

Not sure if that works with polls. In any case, this type of discussion is not what the Closet is for.

[Alejandro24 575]

...

Mexico City (Mexico) as well as Connecticut, Washington DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire & Vermont have all also legalized gay marriage.

...

Mexico DF, Federal District, do it just only to feel advanced over all the nation, as always they like to feel -wanted they to see it or it not-, is not another factor because mostly part of the country is not ready for that kind of opening.

In my opinion, I think isn't necessary a contract obligatory called marriage, just they need a legislation.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Marriage is a religious term. All unions between consenting adults should be called Civil Unions. Calling them marriages is a separation of church and state issue and calling homosexual unions marriages offends religious conservatives. I honestly believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals but certain words have a lot of meaning and baggage.

[astronelson 339]

Marriage is as much a religious term now as goodbye is. It is a shorter and nicer word that describes something which is, ideally, exactly the same as a civil union. We don't insist on civil unions for atheist couples, so saying it is a religious term is not a valid argument.

[EyeofMobius 27]

I'm in Canada, and most people here have moved past the whole issue. I think about 60% of Canadians support it now.

Dunno about that statistic. It may be that 60% of Canadians in larger urban centres are either for it or do not choose to speak for or against it. Perhaps I am just skewed from living in Conservative Heartland where it seems more like 60% of people oppose it. In my experience it is something that is not a supported movement in rural areas either.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Although it is legal, and I don't dispute it myself, in Canada the jury is still out on this. There have been demonstrations both pro and con recently.

[Zelgadis 638]

Maybe some nice moderator would merge this with the Closet thread?

Nope. The Closet has been getting far too debate-y lately. And the Closet is explicitly not for that purpose.

The threads stay separate.

ISF

[Duke87 1,070]

Marriage is as much a religious term now as goodbye is.

Depends on where you live. You'd be surprised.

Nonetheless, I have noticed that more and more younger couples are opting to just get a civil marriage rather than have a religious ceremony. Our parents weren't all serious about religion but they all at least went through the motions. Now many of us are not even bothering to go through the motions.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The churches are concerned with the sacrament of matrimony, sometimes referred to as marriage in the vernacular, but not used in clerical parlance.

A whole vernacular has arisen about the phrase "get married", which is irrelevant to religion.

IMHO the term "civil union" is an an example of the worst of policical correctness. It is just a euphemism to make some people feel better about the facts.

I don't care if you are married in church or by the state. Church marriages are normally accompanied by a state license, and so both things are accomplished simultaneously. The rest is silence.

[Linoa06 1,374]

Well, should be made legal. There are more "pressing" issues, but a government that takes care of one issue at a time is a failed one. Besides, for the concerned people, "pressing" is all too subjective.

Nothing wrong with allowing a marriage no matter the partners' sex and gender. (Even though I have harsh views on marriage and think it should be abolished alltogether or severely revamped) I think people shouldn't interfere in other people's stuff too much, though, and if two people love and want to somehow bond further, we shouldn't let our backwater people oppose it because it's just against their "values".

Gotta love 'civil unions', too, and that politically correct stuff. If we ban someone's right to marry on grounds of their sex or gender, why don't we also put limits on age, or wages, or location? Gay marriage is opposed by secular people who oppose all and every change and will never see beyond their own noses. The same people who tell you to work on Sunday so they can do their shopping 24/7 and ask that poor people contribute to health care funding (or oppose it alltogether).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If you are going to put a qualifier on marriage, it is pejorative no matter what you ad.

Marriage should be defined in law as a legal state of union between two consenting adults. Nothing more.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Well, historically, neither of the parties needed to be 18 because "adults" were anyone old enough to fight or run a business, which could be as low as 12. Jewish law says a boy becomes a man at 13.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, historically, neither of the parties needed to be 18 because "adults" were anyone old enough to fight or run a business, which could be as low as 12. Jewish law says a boy becomes a man at 13.

But I said nothing about age of majority. In some countries, a girl becomes a woman at menarche. Boys are often fully fertile by age 10, and therefore such a couple could marry and raise a family. If the life expectancy in the country is 20, why not?

[jammy 0]

I have made this topic without realizing it was coinciding with a vote on gay marriage in New York state. I am surprised that New York wasn't one of the more progressive states on this issue (I know New York City is very liberal) but I am unsure about the rest of the state. Again, California, I would have expected to have being more progressive on gay marriage.

The argument from a religious perspective is something I cannot easily respect. 'God wouldn't want it'. At least in the USA, this should not be a stand point as is it not in the American constitution that religion and politics are meant to stay separate.

Amendment 14, 7/9/1868 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Surely this piece of the constitution states that gay marriage is illegal as denying gay marriage 'denies a person loss of liberty and does not provide equal protection under the laws of marriage' ?

Another argument is that 'gay marriage will damage the concept of marriage and create a situation damaging for children'

I believe this argument to be nonsense.

[hym 358]

At least in the USA, this should not be a stand point as is it not in the American constitution that religion and politics are meant to stay separate.

Not exactly. The First Amendment says that the government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It doesn't say anything about the citizens injecting religion into politics. There are multiple ways to interpret this. Most Americans follow the "separation of church and state" interpretation, though some follow the "God in government, but no government in God" interpretation.

Amendment 14, 7/9/1868 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Surely this piece of the constitution states that gay marriage is illegal as denying gay marriage 'denies a person loss of liberty and does not provide equal protection under the laws of marriage' ?

While I certainly don't claim to be an expert on marital law, I don't think the "legal protections" of marriage law fall under the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. When it comes to the subject of marriage, US legal code is a double-edge sword; on the one hand, it grants certain privileges, but at the same time, it also imposes certain responsibilities. In some aspects of the law, it is better to be married while in other aspects of the law, you're far better off single.

As to whether the 14th Amendment actually covers same-sex marriage, I don't think anyone has ever tried to push a legal challenge on that basis.

[Duke87 1,070]

Also consider that there is no law anywhere saying a gay person can't get married - they just can't get married to someone of the same sex. The argument could be made that there is no inequality in the law whatsoever: all men, regardless of who they are, have the right to marry a woman; and all women, regardless of who they are, have the right to marry a man.

I don't agree with this perspective but in the right court it could stand up.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The argument from a religious perspective is something I cannot easily respect. 'God wouldn't want it'.

Anyone who claims to know the mind of God is guilty of the mortal sin of presumption. This kind of nonsense has caused more trouble in the world than any other ideology. God, if there is one, hasn't spoken to anyone on the record since Fatima. Little Spanish girls, fully faithful, were accepted as having a "visitation". Who really knows?

I think I have made myself clear on the thread subject. Dragging religious arguments in is a non-starter. We have all agreed, I think, that matrimony and civil marriage are "similar, but not matching".

[s.i.X 13]

I'm in Canada, and most people here have moved past the whole issue. I think about 60% of Canadians support it now.

Dunno about that statistic. It may be that 60% of Canadians in larger urban centres are either for it or do not choose to speak for or against it. Perhaps I am just skewed from living in Conservative Heartland where it seems more like 60% of people oppose it. In my experience it is something that is not a supported movement in rural areas either.

80% of Canadians live in urban areas so if 60% of them support it, that's still a majority of all Canadians. Just because some country bumpkins want to live in a culture of hate doesn't mean we all have to.

Most Americans follow the "separation of church and state" interpretation, though some follow the "God in government, but no government in God" interpretation.

If religion wants to wrap its tentacles around government then it should pay taxes too.

  Edited June 22, 2011 by hym  
Combining double posts.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Most Americans follow the "separation of church and state" interpretation, though some follow the "God in government, but no government in God" interpretation.

If religion wants to wrap its tentacles around government then it should pay taxes too.

Yes and no. The government gets a free supplier of psychiatric services in the confessionals of the Catholic Church, so the tax break comes back in other ways.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The church has always been exempt from taxes, the US prevents churches from being funded by taxpayers. All politicians are influenced by their personal beliefs and religion is a large part of many beliefs.

There is no need to drag personal opinions like that one into this discussion. It doesn't profit anyone.--hym

[hym 358]

Most Americans follow the "separation of church and state" interpretation, though some follow the "God in government, but no government in God" interpretation.

If religion wants to wrap its tentacles around government then it should pay taxes too.

The problem with your suggestion is that it is a gross oversimplification of the issue. Some churches and religious officials are openly political. However, they are in the extreme minority. Myriad congregation-level officiants (I can't think of a good term for the numerous titles for those who serve in some sort of "priest-ish" function) make a specific point about not discussing political issues or ideologies in any sort of official capacity. They specifically don't want the two of them to become intertwined. However, just because they don't want to mix the two of them in an official capacity doesn't mean the two don't mix in an unofficial capacity. People are influenced by their religious beliefs, and those religious beliefs can influence their politics. It is through this channel that religion weaves its way into politics, despite the churches making no demonstrable effort to mix the two (and, again, in many cases, deliberate efforts are made to not mix the two). You can't tax the churches because, while it may be obvious what is happening, you can't legally prove that there is intent for that result to occur, and you can't tax the individuals as that violates their First Amendment rights in so many different ways that it is difficult to mention them all.

[s.i.X 13]

Most Americans follow the "separation of church and state" interpretation, though some follow the "God in government, but no government in God" interpretation.

If religion wants to wrap its tentacles around government then it should pay taxes too.

Yes and no. The government gets a free supplier of psychiatric services in the confessionals of the Catholic Church, so the tax break comes back in other ways.

Kind of ironic that you bring up psychiatry and the Catholic Church, which has physically, mentally and emotionally abused millions of children world-wide through its systemic pedophilia, and in Ontario has a reputation of banning pro-gay student groups in its government funded school system—which, by the way, the sooner that is gone, the better. The victims of Catholicism require psychiatric help and it isn't the church that pays for it! The priests that commit these crimes even get away with them. Non-religious pedophiles get classified as sex offenders for life and see jail time. Pedophile priests get moved to another parish.

Coincidentally, a couple letters to the editor of my local paper about gays and Catholic schools:

I am alarmed by the letter from Ellen Chambers, condoning the teaching of the gay lifestyle to young children. We send our children to school to be educated ... not to be indoctrinated by teachers.

...

If publicly-funded private schools were allowed in Ontario, there would be a mass exodus of students from the public boards.

Michael J.K. Robinson

Thunder Bay

http://www.chroniclejournal.com/editorial/letters/2011-06-21/stick-basics

That last line really cracks me up. If we had publicly-funded private school in Ontario, we'd just have more public schools! :crazy:

I am continually amazed by the uneducated and damaging attacks made by folks such as this who continue to see life in such negative terms.

...

Ironically, it is due to people such as this that our schools have had to take a direct role in educating our children about the real world, the one that includes homosexuality.

...

http://www.chroniclejournal.com/editorial/letters/2011-06-22/cruel-lesson-life

  Edited June 23, 2011 by s.i.X  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There have been several well-publicized instances of gay clerics in the Catholic Church, and I know personally one priest, now defrocked, who kept a wife and family, but in general I think you are over-reacting. I do understand that the Catholic Church in your part of the country has been a very bad actor, from the so-called Jesuit martyrs forward, and especially with the residential schools which operated with government mandate. I don't think this problem is as wide spread as many would like to believe.

The whole problem stems from "Saint" Augustine who is the one who promulgated the celibacy of priests idea. Strange, because he was a Bishop and up to his time most clergy were married. Augustine had a wife and nine kids, so this is surely a conundrum. Maybe he considered his family a burden.

I know from personal experience that the biggest problem in the Catholic clergy is alcoholism. Many of them drink like fish, and since alcoholic wine is used in the communion service because the rubric says "wine" not "grape juice", there is a kind of entrapment for some of these guys. Remember the ordination service says "a priest forever", and they are required to say mass daily.

The Anglican Church has a much different outlook. I heard somewhere that you cannot be promoted to Bishop unless you have a wife and family. Makes a lot more sense. The Church of England is certainly the closest to the Catholics in organization and philosophy. The celibacy issue will always be a stumbling block for any mergers that have been talked about.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Cease and Desist, s.i.x!