Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[Nikolai]

If gay marriage will ever be allowed(and I think it will, although I think the present way of partnership is good enough), I certainly hope it will not be mandatory for the priests to marry them against their will... I mean, I have nothing particular against gays, but it would be wrong if the priests would have to do this even if it's against their faith. In Norway we have state church, and that means that if the state decides gay marriage is all right, the church and its priests has to obey... I think that is wrong.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Nikolai
If gay marriage will ever be allowed(and I think it will, although I think the present way of partnership is good enough), I certainly hope it will not be mandatory for the priests to marry them against their will... I mean, I have nothing particular against gays, but it would be wrong if the priests would have to do this even if it's against their faith. In Norway we have state church, and that means that if the state decides gay marriage is all right, the church and its priests has to obey... I think that is wrong.

I think it is wrong to have State Church. This is one of the reasons.

Over here in France, the official marriage is done before the mayor, and you can have whatever religious marriage if you want as well. The religious marriage is something entirely decided by the religious authorities (and not by the State), because they have no impact whatsoever on your official marital status.

[Ming]

Nobody is asking religions to perform marriages against their wishes. Religions should be allowed to make their own decisions on who's marriage that their faith will sanction. That's their right, and they are welcome to it.

What some people are saying is that religion shouldn't dictate to the state what the state should be allowed to do. In the US, you need a license from the state to get married. That is the OFFICIAL document that provides all the legal rights that come with marriage. Religions should stay out of that process...

[Provost Harrison]

I couldn't have put it better. Marriage is a contract between two people sanctioned by the state. It is no affair of any other group to dictate the parameters of the marriage (as long as within the bounds of consent, etc).

[Wiglaf]

Marriage is steeped in straight and religious traditions.

Why not enter into a contract with fifty men while you're at it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Marriage is steeped in straight and religious traditions.

Yep... it is. So what. Nobody is saying that the religions can't do as they wish.

But sea captain, justice's of the peace, and other public officials also have a long tradition when it comes to marriages

The point is that the state provides the official document that provides the legal rights that come with it. Please explain how religion is involved in any of this... they don't have a role in the legal part at all. And they shouldn't.

Religions can't even agree on this issue... so which religion do you want to make the rules

Let them do what they want... and let the state do what it wants... That's the way it's supposed to work.

[Wiglaf]

they don't have a role in the legal part at all. And they shouldn't.

But the state does.

And the state has no reason to compromise its cultural standards and traditions on everyone who wants rights protection.

Otherwise, why not marry 55 people to each other.

[Tuberski]

Agreed, my brother was actually married to his wife by the Captain of his ship.

It is still a legal marriage.

ACK!

[Monk]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Agreed, my brother was actually married to his wife by the Captain of his ship.

It is still a legal marriage.

ACK!

If I didn't know your style already, your traditional closing comment would suggest you strongly disapproved.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Monk


If I didn't know your style already, your traditional closing comment would suggest you strongly disapproved.

ACK!

Maybe I do............



ACK!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
But the state does.

And the state has no reason to compromise its cultural standards and traditions on everyone who wants rights protection.

Otherwise, why not marry 55 people to each other.

If that's what the state passes as a law, whatever.

My point is that the it's up to the state to make the laws... NOT religions (who can't even agree on this subject) If the state doesn't want to sanction such marriages... it's their right.

Frankly, as long as people are consenting adults, I really have no problem with what marriage arrangements they want to make. I do however think the law should be fair... And that's why I support gay marriages. They should have the same legal rights.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Marriage is steeped in straight and religious traditions.

Why not enter into a contract with fifty men while you're at it.

Why not indeed?

[Wiglaf]

My point is that the it's up to the state to make the laws... NOT religions (who can't even agree on this subject) If the state doesn't want to sanction such marriages... it's their right.

This seems reasonable.

But this does not:

I really have no problem with what marriage arrangements they want to make.

I think a nation ought to have cultural norms, and if marriage is that last bastion, then god damn if I'll surrender with Davy Crockett's spirit guiding me.

A culture that thinks of marrying 50 people to each other...the line must be drawn..

[Wiglaf]

The same people who want to change cultural norms don't want to "Rashly" change the constitution.

Realize your history, embrace it, not 50 other men, lest we fall apart at the seams as a nation under God with standards of justice and morality.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The same people who want to change cultural norms don't want to "Rashly" change the constitution.

Realize your history, embrace it, not 50 other men, lest we fall apart at the seams as a nation under God with standards of justice and morality.

Don't you mean justice for all?

ACK!