Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Every political stance is bound to meet disagreement by some people. If we follow your logic, we should do absolutely nothing at all in our lives, because someone will disagree ("be negatively affected" ) with it.

No - I never said that. That would be very silly. I said that we should acknowledge that it affects other people too.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No - I never said that. That would be very silly. I said that we should acknowledge that it affects other people too.

Well, indeed. We should see how much the conservative people (in the original meaning of frowning upon change) will be affected and compare it with how much homosexuals will be affected.

After a quick reflection, I think the happiness of marriage is infinitely more important than the shock of seeing society change.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Spiffor
After a quick reflection, I think the happiness of marriage is infinitely more important than the shock of seeing society change.

I don't think it is as simple as that. It is a matter of erosion - if every year you change society by a little bit, in 30 years it will be unrecognisable.

But that is not really the reason why I changed my mind. I actually would agree with you that the happiness of the gay community in this issue was more important than the smallish change in societal values that the conservatives would have to endure.

But this is only if this was a happiness issue - and here is where I have changed my mind. I have become convinced that this isn't about gay people having a better life - it is about political power. The gay community wants more and (perhaps more importantly) wants the traditional religious community to have less. By making gay 'marriage' legal it would make a statement that being gay is more acceptable than being religious (in a traditional sense). It would also cause havoc in the Christian churches.

Have you noticed that the gay posters here are (on the whole - not all of them) not agreeable to a 'civil union' which is not called 'marriage'. This semms to me to be because it would be a compromise which would not be so devise in the Christian community. Even though they would have the same rights as a married couple, it is not enough. They are not interested in getting happiness, but in making trouble for those who they perceive as their natural enemies.

[Spiffor]

Rogan:

I understand what you say, but I think this sort of 'anti-religious agenda' is more a shallow reaction to the original religious opposition, than the core of the demand for gay marriage.

Personally, I am not gay, and I support gay marriage over mere civl unions for a simple reason: marriage is a ceremony, it is a commitment you show to everybody else, it is the most beautiful day in your life. Civil unions are a piece of paper signed in a City Hall office.

My views may be different from yours because of my French backgrounds. In France, along with the religious marriages (that have no legal consequences whatsoever), there is the Civil marriage, where the spouses say "I do" in front of the mayor, the families etc. Only the civil marriage is acknowledged by the law. So, to me, "marriage" is definitely not only related with religion and different from civil unions in that regard.

BTW, if churches don't want to perform gay marriages, let them do what they want. It's not like they are the ones who decide who gets married at all, or not.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I don't think it is as simple as that. It is a matter of erosion - if every year you change society by a little bit, in 30 years it will be unrecognisable.

Which hasn´t to be a bad thing of course,
as unrecognisable could also mean, that society has altered in a way,
which guarantees a happy and productive life to all of its Members.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

But this is only if this was a happiness issue - and here is where I have changed my mind. I have become convinced that this isn't about gay people having a better life - it is about political power. The gay community wants more and (perhaps more importantly) wants the traditional religious community to have less. By making gay 'marriage' legal it would make a statement that being gay is more acceptable than being religious (in a traditional sense). It would also cause havoc in the Christian churches.

Have you noticed that the gay posters here are (on the whole - not all of them) not agreeable to a 'civil union' which is not called 'marriage'. This semms to me to be because it would be a compromise which would not be so devise in the Christian community. Even though they would have the same rights as a married couple, it is not enough. They are not interested in getting happiness, but in making trouble for those who they perceive as their natural enemies.

I don´t know if they really disagree.
At least I haven´t seen them speaking openly against a Civil Union (which would grant them the full Rights of a Marriage).

So we should ask this Question once again to all Homosexual and also to all religious people:

"What would you think of a Civil Union between two consenting adults (regardless of gender), which gave those rights to them which you, at the moment, could only get through Marriage (such as tax advantages, adoption of children or rights to inheritance),
while at the same time leaving the term "marriage" for a religious ceremony (which wouldn´t grant those who "married" any more rights than you could get through a Civil Union)
Whereby Priests on the other hand have the right to decide for themselves, if they marry a member of theiur parish to another person (and so have the right to refuse a religious marriage of homosexuals, but have no influence if they want to undergo a civil union)."

So, if the gay members of Apolyton don´t answer this Question, you could be right with your statement.
Of course the same goes for the religious members of Apolyton

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Personally, I am not gay, and I support gay marriage over mere civl unions for a simple reason: marriage is a ceremony, it is a commitment you show to everybody else, it is the most beautiful day in your life. Civil unions are a piece of paper signed in a City Hall office.

My views may be different from yours because of my French backgrounds. In France, along with the religious marriages (that have no legal consequences whatsoever), there is the Civil marriage, where the spouses say "I do" in front of the mayor, the families etc. Only the civil marriage is acknowledged by the law. So, to me, "marriage" is definitely not only related with religion and different from civil unions in that regard.

I understand what you are saying (my wife is German, where there is also a civil marriage, and I have lived in France for the last few years) but I am surprised that it influenced your opinion in that way. I would advocate that all 'marriages' be done this way - first there would be a rather dull 'civil union' in front of the registrar, and then one would go off to have a party celebrating the event. The Christians can do this in a church as always with traditional vows etc, while gay couples can do it however they want. Then we leave the word 'marriage' (and the idea of marriage) to the church, but gay couples get the rights they (supposedly) want.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
... adoption of children ....

I am not so sure of that bit - I think adoptive parents for children should be chosen with care, based on their individual merits. I would consider two parents of the same sex to be disadvantageous (but no more so than overly strict parents who use corporal punishment for example).

Otherwise, I (as a Christian) would be in favour of this (obviously).

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

I am not so sure of that bit - I think adoptive parents for children should be chosen with care, based on their individual merits. I would consider two parents of the same sex to be disadvantageous (but no more so than overly strict parents who use corporal punishment for example).

Otherwise, I (as a Christian) would be in favour of this (obviously).

They should be chosen with care, I agree on this.
But I don´t think that it matters whether it is a heterosexual couple that adopts them or a homosexual couple.
After all there are more children in Orphanages than there are people who are willing to adopt children.

And I think a kid will have a much better life with homosexual Parents who really love it, than with being raised in an Orphanage (and I have no doubt that you agree with me, that homosexual couples are as able to love their adopted children and be responsible Parents, as heterosexual couples are).

Therefore I think we shouldn´t exclude homosexual Couples from adopting children.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, I agree with that, but preference should be given to families with a mom and dad.

"What would you think of a Civil Union between two consenting adults (regardless of gender), which gave those rights to them which you, at the moment, could only get through Marriage (such as tax advantages, adoption of children or rights to inheritance),
while at the same time leaving the term "marriage" for a religious ceremony (which wouldn´t grant those who "married" any more rights than you could get through a Civil Union)

Whereby Priests on the other hand have the right to decide for themselves, if they marry a member of theiur parish to another person (and so have the right to refuse a religious marriage of homosexuals, but have no influence if they want to undergo a civil union)."

Couple points here.

1. I believe the state has the right to grant benefits to married people over those of any other relationships.

2. I believe that these benefits do not construe rights as such, cannot be placed as a entitlement by those who get married.

3. I am not opposed to civil unions, provided that the government retain the right of review, and of the ability to dispose benefits as they see fit. The government should be able to change things, if we start to see some unforeseen consequences.

4. Again, these civil unions do not confer 'rights' as such.

5. Protection of clergy from those who wish to pressure them into recognition of these relationships. There needs to be more protection of religious freedoms.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There needs to be official sanctioning of Christianity from the government.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It is interesting to note that almost all the pro-gay rights arguments are based on the idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else negatively.

Yes, and it seems to me that this can't be right all the time. That doesn't mean that it can't be right in this case.

There is a a massive gap between rejecting this principle and endorsing Christian morality.

[Ned]

I understand that there is a second form of constitutional amendment being floated. It says that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states individually (i.e., no full faith and credit?), but only by the legislatures or by the people.

I wonder how this would fly in the Kerry campaign? It also seems to reflect Schwarzenegger's views.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I understand what you are saying (my wife is German, where there is also a civil marriage, and I have lived in France for the last few years) but I am surprised that it influenced your opinion in that way. I would advocate that all 'marriages' be done this way - first there would be a rather dull 'civil union' in front of the registrar, and then one would go off to have a party celebrating the event. The Christians can do this in a church as always with traditional vows etc, while gay couples can do it however they want. Then we leave the word 'marriage' (and the idea of marriage) to the church, but gay couples get the rights they (supposedly) want.

Ahh, but here's where your arguement starts to fall apart:

You and your church and not the representative voice for all Christians.

There are right now, in the US and Canada (maybe Europe too, I don't know), Christian churches that are perfectly willing to perform gay marriages. If you pass a law banning "marriages" for homosexuals, then aren't you still impinging on religious freedom?

[Thorn]

PRAISE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!

He cometh on to thee, THOU SHALL PENETRATE THE LORD OUR SAVIOR!

THE DEVIL HAS PLACED HIS FILTHY SELF BEHIND JESUS, IT IS AN ABOMINATION!!

[Sava]

rofl