Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - [rantage] Opinions < law / statistics in government.
| User | Post |
Vystrix Nexoth
Posts: 293/348 |
Of course, whether or not any religion consents to same-sex relationships and/or marriage can be debated ad infinitum, but it's a moot point in the context of civil marriage. Allow me to explain.
See, there are two (count 'em, two) institutions which are referred to as "marriage". Though they have the same name, they are separate things. I refer, of course, to religious marriage and civil marriage.
A religious marriage depends on the religion. To use Catholicism as an example, a catholic marriage is a relationship between a Man, a Woman, and God, and is recognized by and performed under the auspices of the Catholic Church. The State has (or should have) no interest nor jurisdiction in these matters.
A civil marriage is recognized by and performed by, and under the auspices of, the State (e.g. the United States). This is a relationship between two consenting and qualified adults, and the State, and confers benefits such as visitation rights, joint custody of children, and so on. The Church has (or should have) no interest nor jurisdiction in these matters.
These types of marriage are (or at least ought to be) wholly independent of one another: you can get a Religious Marriage without a corresponding Civil Marriage, or vice-versa, or, as usually happens, both.
Religious marriage is (or should be) outside the jurisdiction of the State, and conversely, Civil marriage is (or should be) outside the jurisdiction of the Church.
Now, what does this all mean? It means that if the Church doesn't want to recognize same-sex relationships or permit same-sex couples to marry, that's OK. The State has (or should have) no say in that matter. The State only has jurisdiction in Civil marriage, where I think it ought to allow for same-sex civil marriage; not "civil union", but civil marriage.
And, again, I don't think the State should impose same-sex marriage upon any religion against its will, and will speak out if it attempts to do so.
Now, whether the church ought to adopt same-sex religious marriage can be debated ad infinitum, and for religious same-sex couples who wish to get married, they'll have to come to terms with that on their own (note that Christianity is not the only religion; there are religions |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3528/5458 |
Originally posted by Trapster
It must be a transsexuality gene then. I think I mixed them up.
"At least our parties don't have roots in slavery."
And that quote wasn
Ran-chan
Posts: 8842/12781 |
It must be a transsexuality gene then. I think I mixed them up.
"At least our parties don't have roots in slavery."
And that quote wasn |
Gavin
Posts: 612/799 |
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
You can argue homosexuality to be unnatural without looking at marriage, as Randy did. But that depends upon whether you view unnatural to be synonymous with evil. I don't. Given people are drawn to be homosexual without outside influences, it is at least in some respect natural - motivated by hormones and impulses in the brain. Otherwise it would just be some novelty done once in a while, not a lifestyle.
word.
Originally posted by Trapster
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
You can argue homosexuality to be unnatural without looking at marriage, as Randy did. But that depends upon whether you view unnatural to be synonymous with evil. I don't. Given people are drawn to be homosexual without outside influences, it is at least in some respect natural - motivated by hormones and impulses in the brain. Otherwise it would just be some novelty done once in a while, not a lifestyle.
I heard from Kasumi that it
Ran-chan
Posts: 8800/12781 |
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
You can argue homosexuality to be unnatural without looking at marriage, as Randy did. But that depends upon whether you view unnatural to be synonymous with evil. I don't. Given people are drawn to be homosexual without outside influences, it is at least in some respect natural - motivated by hormones and impulses in the brain. Otherwise it would just be some novelty done once in a while, not a lifestyle.
I heard from Kasumi that it |
Dracoon
Posts: 2818/3727 |
There is a much better idea than to have the government involved.
Change all marriages without the church civil union, marriages with the church stay that. It is a religious thing endorsed by the government, so let the people who made it decide. The vote happens today in Kansas whether the defination of marriage is going to be changed to a man and a woman.
You know, if they want to preserve marriage, why are the changing it?
Now, back on topic. Yes people do things with their opinions, because people suck. Its completely true that people suck. I could magically find evidence about any major thing, and people would just ignore it, blocking it from their mind so they don't have to worry about it.
Like people with genetically enhanced food. They refuse to eat it because it has to be "organic", but it would save so many lives. The sad thing is, there is someone who won the nobel peace prize and was estimated to have saved a billion people, yet people put opinions first. |
Ailure
Posts: 9131/11162 |
Mmm, and oh. Let's make all other types than vaginal sex illegal. Becuse everything else is unnatural.
Originally posted by Ziffski
Sweden, Norway and other Northern nations were primarily mercenary nations until modern times. They were used as personal armies for the most part. But to say that you never had slavery is untrue. The Vikings excelled at taking slaves and their economy was based around that
Mmm, I agree that we had slaves at a certain time. I guess I should have said after the 15th century or something... At least our parties don't have roots in slavery.  |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 1685/2189 |
You can argue homosexuality to be unnatural without looking at marriage, as Randy did. But that depends upon whether you view unnatural to be synonymous with evil. I don't. Given people are drawn to be homosexual without outside influences, it is at least in some respect natural - motivated by hormones and impulses in the brain. Otherwise it would just be some novelty done once in a while, not a lifestyle. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3523/5458 |
I'll fix up that tag thing in a moment
As for the wedding vows. That is pecularly Catholic. The Catholic Church demands that wedded couples have kids. No one else does |
Tamarin Calanis
Posts: 421/1802 |
I think he was trying to support HGanon's argument about reproduction.
Oddly, though, I don't think the traditional wedding vows include anything about having kids. |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 1684/2189 |
Ditto. You're not making any sense Randy. Unless of course you were serious about shutting down all public education. Then again by extension of that argument the government shouldn't even exist - you're proposing we overthrow the government or something? |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3518/5458 |
Again.
What? |
Sandy53215
Posts: 413/948 |
Originally posted by HGanon
Originally posted by windwaker
Like with the "omg gay = dai IT'S UNNATURAL" thing, that's an opinion, yet the thought of restricting a right of a human in America is unconstitutional.
That's NOT an opinion. How can you say that when it's a fact you need 1 male and 1 female to reproduce?
Refering to this... Did you even read my post? |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3517/5458 |
Originally posted by Randy53215
Something has to be wrong if a male and another male or a female another female cannot reproduce. It shows... IT WASNT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! Put 2 and 2 together people.
What? |
Sandy53215
Posts: 412/948 |
Something has to be wrong if a male and another male or a female another female cannot reproduce. It shows... IT WASNT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! Put 2 and 2 together people.
And if you wanna talk about the government in such a way. We should shut down the public school system. The Federal Government is not supposed to be in peoples education. Also just look. Who first wed male and female? The church! Why does the government have to get involved? |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3506/5458 |
Sweden, Norway and other Northern nations were primarily mercenary nations until modern times. They were used as personal armies for the most part. But to say that you never had slavery is untrue. The Vikings excelled at taking slaves and their economy was based around that |
Ailure
Posts: 9119/11162 |
Originally posted by Grey
Ailure: Your political parties also don't take their roots in slavery, bigotry, and base their views off of religion. Chruch and state need to be kept separate.
Mmm, for a few years ago the state and church was the same thing then they got seperated. And there is a relgious part, but they aren't very succeful. Especially after their anti-gay campaign about gay people adopting kids... it was turned out that the kids was actually treated good by the gay parents if not better.
True, we never had slavery. And maybe that's a good thing, althought we did import alot of things that was made by slaves during the 16th/17th/18th centuries.
And oh, about the natural thing. By nature we're mostly bisexual, at least if you look at our closest relative (the chimp) have wild sex with each other regardless of the gender. And the sex seems to be just for fun, they do it even if they aren't in "heat". I think it's mainly becuse of moral and choiche that people are they're sexuality. And you can't say that there is certain way to turn gay or bisexual. It's just up to the person itself, it's maybe just a fluke but I yet have to see a rude bisexual or homosexual person. They sure exist but I hadn't seen one. And I really don't mind if some guy get's sexually attracted to me, as long he leave me alone. |
Dracoon
Posts: 2816/3727 |
Grey, just some minor nit picks in your post.
Cathiic religion is shrinking, last time I checked in this area, Protestant is increasing. Most churches realize that time has created a differnce between what was fine back then and what is now. It is also accepted that the bible was written by man.
Anyways, I don't care, the church recognizing marriage CAN'T change. Only what the government recognizes. |
Vystrix Nexoth
Posts: 292/348 |
Originally posted by HGanon
Originally posted by windwaker
Like with the "omg gay = dai IT'S UNNATURAL" thing, that's an opinion, yet the thought of restricting a right of a human in America is unconstitutional.
That's NOT an opinion. How can you say that when it's a fact you need 1 male and 1 female to reproduce?
Celibacy is unnatural as well. After all, humans have a libido (sex drive) and that is natural (God-given, if you want to view it that way): it is natural to want to have sex. Yet we are taught to suppress that, especially by the Christian Right.
You cannot invoke nature if you do so only when it supports your position ("same-sex relationships are unnatural and therefore bad") and dismiss it when it does not ("you ought to be celibate despite celibacy being unnatural").
(Note: I'm not saying "celibacy is bad".) |
Gavin
Posts: 600/799 |
lolz that's great foryou bt th3 bibl3 sh0uld neVar become officially embeded in our federal or state laws because that's not how our government works lolz!11
lolz HGanon's points were refuted lolz and s0 w4s j0!! |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | | |
|
