What is Love?

[Dauphin]

Personally I think marriage is a stupid concept and I just don't understand its relevance...especially in this day and age.

INHERITANCE TAX OF COURSE!

[Nikolai]

Why is it more orderly to have the distinction? What exactly are the concrete benefits?

Keeping it separated makes the legal issues easier to handle. And it's no good reason to have one law for all marriage situations, much better to keep separate situations separate. In countries where marriage is not separated into civil unions and religious blessing, as in a lot of European countries, it makes it easier to avoid the churches having trouble with adjusting too. Those churches who want to bless same-sex marriage can do so, as is their right, and those who won't can avoid it, as is their right. With one law, that has turned out hard to handle.

[giblets]

Keeping it separated makes the legal issues easier to handle. And it's no good reason to have one law for all marriage situations, much better to keep separate situations separate. In countries where marriage is not separated into civil unions and religious blessing, as in a lot of European countries, it makes it easier to avoid the churches having trouble with adjusting too. Those churches who want to bless same-sex marriage can do so, as is their right, and those who won't can avoid it, as is their right. With one law, that has turned out hard to handle.

Why couldn't churches be allowed to refuse to bless a gay marriage? Doesn't seem like it would be much of an issue to me.

[Nikolai]

Since the church is one of the legal places to get married and they marry under the current marriage law, they are under strong pressure to bless them. It's no easy issue, and it would have been avoided if we had kept the old distinction, where we had marriage for different sex couples and civil unions for gays. The civil union was more or less exactly the same as marriage in terms of rights, the only real difference was the name and that one could not do civil unions in a church(one could get blessings if the church was okay with it though). You have to understand that the church is THE place people get married, so this is a real issue, very few marry with a judge.

[giblets]

Is this a problem in Norway? I don't think it would be much of an issue in the US. The churches that don't want to bless same-sex marriages wouldn't have to and the gay couples can go get married at churches that are willing to do that.

[Nikolai]

80% of the population belong to the state church(although perhaps only 10% at best actually belive in God, we're actually one of the most atheist countries in the world I think), and most want to marry there. The state has tried to force the church to change their attitude towards the subject by appointing bishops who are liberal and influencing the largest college for priest education, and the press and the "homo lobby"(or whatever one should call them, influencial gays at least) have ridiculed priests and believers who don't agree. It's a strong pressure on the church to allow this, and it all began in earnest with the same sex marriage law. Since the church is the place most people marry and the church is owned by the state, this is a problem.

But this is not first and foremost a religious issue, it's an issue of laws, rights and a real mess. The church is involved so strongly in the mix because of the state's role in it. The state both tries to be secular and tolerant and at the same time appoints bishops and finance the church, while harassing the ones who don't agree with their.....tolerance.

[Provost Harrison]

But this is not first and foremost a religious issue, it's an issue of laws, rights and a real mess. The church is involved so strongly in the mix because of the state's role in it. The state both tries to be secular and tolerant and at the same time appoints bishops and finance the church, while harassing the ones who don't agree with their.....tolerance.

Nikolai, I can smell bulls*t a mile off. You're absolutely right it isn't an issue of the church,and under a modern, free society, anyone should be free to marry anyone else. What happens between consenting adults is no concern of anyone else, except their own. Especially not some archaic religious establishment.

I'm sorry, under law there should be no distinction between marriage no matter who the participants are. Again, refer to my above post regarding trying to assign some sort of inferiority to a same sex marriage in reply to you which you convenient ignore - which is what you are doing. See this is the issue - you want to impart the name "civil partnership" because in your religious arrogance you believe you hold rights over the concept of marriage and can't bear the thought of homosexuals marrying. Newsflash - you don't, and quite frankly, what damn business of yours is it. There is absolutely no issue of law or rights here...this is exactly where you are bullsh*tting. In facts, further rights would indicate complete parity between all marriage types.

Seriously, to this day I despise the righteousness of you religious types and no one ever dare take you to task. This is the modern age, not the medieval one, and what happens between two consenting adults is their business and society should assist them in doing what they wish. No anachronistic religious establishment should have any rights in dictating to society any more

[Nikolai]

You are free to think whatever you want. I don't answer to you or what you believe of me. I know you are dead wrong, and if you want to believe less of me and my intents, that's your loss. A tip: Try to look beyond your prejudices, you might find some surprises.

[Provost Harrison]

So hang on, because I dislike religion for imposing its standards on the rest of the world, my distrust is a result of my prejudices. I'm sorry Nikolai, you're a good, smart guy. I thought you'd be beyond this crap...

[Nikolai]

I'm just saying you seem to judge me based on what you think lie behind my views, not what I actually stand for. I suspected the end of this would be that someone would draw the religious idiot card, just didn't think it would be you. I think there should be separate marriage laws for different forms of marriage, and base that on objective reasons for the most part. Of course, no one can completely escape their basis for their view of the world, for me that is Christianity, for you(I presume) something else. But that doesn't make me a stupid bigot.

[notyoueither]

Nikolai, what do you say about Christian churches who want to marry same-sex couples?

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Of course, no one can completely escape their basis for their view of the world

Compass
Classical Era
"The wisest men follow their own direction."
- Euripides

[Nikolai]

Nikolai, what do you say about Christian churches who want to marry same-sex couples?

I say I think they are wrong, but it's their right to do it if it's what they believe. That's the good thing with more than one church available, you can choose which you feel is right.

[Nikolai]

Compass
Classical Era
"The wisest men follow their own direction."
- Euripides

As a human, all direction is determined by your starting point. No man is without some kind of bias/starting point, because no man is a completely tabula rasa.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

I say I think they are wrong, but it's their right to do it if it's what they believe. That's the good thing with more than one church available, you can choose which you feel is right.

or you can create your own church and shag all the choir girls / altar boys (because it will help them go to your heaven)