Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ming]

If you really look at it... it's the STATE that grants the churches the right to perform weddings... without permission from the state, a religion can't perform a wedding that will be recogonized by the state. Why the relgious folks think they have "ownership' of marriage or the name marriage is beyond me. The claim that only they should be able to perform something called marriage is just plain silly. Especially considering that all religions don't even agree on this subject.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Since you want some status for civil means... for tax reasons, benefits... etc.

Respectfully, such rights and obligations have nothing to do with obtaining a prior license before "marriage." In Kalifornia, all one has to do is "register" the relationship. The state has no authority to deny or prevent people from forming the relationship in the first place.

In other words, if you need a license, the state may deny it.

Why would they deny it?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


Kontiki, community property is that property "earned" during a marriage. With multiple partners, the latecomer would only get a share of the communal property created after the date of marriage.

It is not that complicated.

Not quite, although you do have something of a point. The formula for determining it would be rather complex.

Still, you have the issue of granting the divorce in the first place. Do all four have to agree? What if one doesn't?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ming
If you really look at it... it's the STATE that grants the churches the right to perform weddings... without permission from the state, a religion can't perform a wedding that will be recogonized by the state. Why the relgious folks think they have "ownership' of marriage or the name marriage is beyond me. The claim that only they should be able to perform something called marriage is just plain silly. Especially considering that all religions don't even agree on this subject.

Its become a common fallacy... however. Better to isolate the issue to an irrelevancy, than to try and change a commonly held fallacy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming
If you really look at it... it's the STATE that grants the churches the right to perform weddings... without permission from the state, a religion can't perform a wedding that will be recogonized by the state. Why the relgious folks think they have "ownership' of marriage or the name marriage is beyond me. The claim that only they should be able to perform something called marriage is just plain silly. Especially considering that all religions don't even agree on this subject.

I don't know what the prior practice of the Roman Empire was - but it was St. Paul who began the practice of religious ceremonies for Christians.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, you seem to be arguing now against marriage per se which is inconsistent with an argument that we should allow gay marriages.

Not at all. Firstly I am not arguing against marriage, rather I am saying that its reasons for keeping couples together do not equate to stability, and thus a healthy environment for children.

Secondly that deals with the consequential side of the argument, whereas while that is pretty strong imho, the intentional side is strongest, where one says that marriage is a right that does not impede upon other people, therefore it should be legalised. The premises for that are contained above.

You do this by saying that any legally imposed obligations on a domestic partner to stay in the relationship is disfavored.

I never said it was unfavourable, I said it is not conducive to stability if this is the only thing keeping a marriage together, whereby an equivalent non-married couple would break up. I would not want to be a kid in that house!

However, that is exactly what marriage brings with it. Today, gay and lesbian couples can split with ease with virtually no lingering obligations to their partner. This never happens with "the divorces" because there are continuing obligations of support and there are division of property issues to be considered. There may be also issues involving custody of children.

The battle for gay marriages is not only a battle of rights. There are significant obligations involved in marriages that tend to keep couples together because the cost of separation is so high.

Maybe so, but that does not mean stability as has been iterated several times before, and children raised in such an unpleasant household are going to suffer. It is not a pleasant experience believe me.

Thats a strawman argument.

Precisely.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Not quite, although you do have something of a point. The formula for determining it would be rather complex.

Still, you have the issue of granting the divorce in the first place. Do all four have to agree? What if one doesn't?

Divorce is a right.

Division of property, continuing support and child custody are legal proceedings that are part of the separation process.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't know what the prior practice of the Roman Empire was - but it was St. Paul who began the practice of religious ceremonies for Christians.

So... the Jewish faith was performing marriages long before that. Your point? The Christians showed up late in the game

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Beats me - that your arguement.

Not at all. I am happy with any non-governmental body performing a "marriage" and calling it that, including any gay rights groups, any social club or any religious movement. You were the one who seemed to bring up the restriction to religious groups.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Respectfully, such rights and obligations have nothing to do with obtaining a prior license before "marriage." In Kalifornia, all one has to do is "register" the relationship. The state has no authority to deny or prevent people from forming the relationship in the first place.

In other words, if you need a license, the state may deny it.

Why would they deny it?

The standard of states differ. California is usually pretty liberal.

Also, and its been mentioned before, the issue is largely a federal one rather than a state one... therefore the decision of a single state isn't helpful in this regard.

[Whaleboy]

So... the Jewish faith was performing marriages long before that. Your point? The Christians showed up late in the game

True, but even more... I think it was the Hindus! And iirc they allowed polygamy!!

Everyone has me on ignore except Ned...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Not at all. I am happy with any non-governmental body performing a "marriage" and calling it that, including any gay rights groups, any social club or any religious movement. You were the one who seemed to bring up the restriction to religious groups.

The central problem I have is why any state would require a formal license and a formal ceremony to make valid a marriage contract between two people.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Not at all. I am happy with any non-governmental body performing a "marriage" and calling it that, including any gay rights groups, any social club or any religious movement. You were the one who seemed to bring up the restriction to religious groups.

That's a big change from...

I am against gay marriage. Mainly because there is no such thing. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, so two gay men can never be married.

Why don't you homosexual gentlemen go find your own word for your "unions" and leave ours alone.

So which is it

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You were the one who seemed to bring up the restriction to religious groups.

WHAT???

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
he point was that I don't want the state to recognise the union of two gay people as a 'marriage'. Since the word 'marriage' has religious conotations, I believe that should be left up to the church

I believe you're being economical with the truth.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


The central problem I have is why any state would require a formal license and a formal ceremony to make valid a marriage contract between two people.

They are separate conceptually... and I think rightly so.

I think its justified in the seperation of church and state clause.