Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
It's big legal difference - in Muslim countries your marriages, however many they may be, are seperate. Marriage is still concieved in the same way as in the West, and as I said the Western prohibition again Polygamy is Roman, not Christian.Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
what is being proposed here is a legal chage, therefore what should be considered is legel precedent.
Not emotions.
Originally Posted by Whacker:
I don't care what you try two wrap it up as, it's still a turd. You're stating that a homosexual man can't call his "life partner" his "husband", because YOU say it's not the same thing.
Legally, it isn't. A husband has a wife - not a husband, and a wife has husband - not a wife. That is currently a legal fact in the large part of the world. Further, you do not have a business "wife", you have a business "partner".I don't care what you try two wrap it up as, it's still a turd. You're stating that a homosexual man can't call his "life partner" his "husband", because YOU say it's not the same thing.
It is very clear that the three words are not interchangable, they have different historical connotations and contemporary meanings. Replacing husband and wife with "partner" in legal documents changes chose documents - it removes the gender-identification of the parties, and it removes the requirement that they have a sexual relationship.
Originally Posted by :
I have been reading exactly what you say. Thanks for that good laugh though, I enjoyed YOU calling ME the bigot here. As tribsey used to say,
.
Maybe you should try reading what I write. Simply telling me I am a bigot because I oppose Gay marriage is basically being a bigot.I have been reading exactly what you say. Thanks for that good laugh though, I enjoyed YOU calling ME the bigot here. As tribsey used to say,
.Originally Posted by :
No, you just hate the fact that they want to be treated with the same human dignity, respect, and equality that any other human being should be. Go ahead though, keep talking. I love reading your explanations of why this isn't discrimination or degrading.
I don't hate anyone, except that bastard whoes marrying the girl I have complicated and unresolved feelings about.No, you just hate the fact that they want to be treated with the same human dignity, respect, and equality that any other human being should be. Go ahead though, keep talking. I love reading your explanations of why this isn't discrimination or degrading.
I don't believe that marriage can exist without the capability to procreate.
Originally Posted by :
I jumped the gun there, forgetting you are English. Perhaps in England that is how they are viewed and handled. In the US, birth certificates are handled such that the legal parents are listed on the document. See here and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_adoption
See the part where it states an amended certificate is issued and the adoptive parents are assigned the roles, and this becomes the bottom line official document. This does contrast with how open adoption works in some states, in that the certificate is apparently not altered but the records are "sealed" and the child is prevented from gaining access to "identifying" information about their biological parents.
In the UK the original certificate is retained, and an "adoption" certificate is issued - the birth parents go on one, the legal guardians on the second. When you adopt someone you supplant the birth parents and they cease to have a legal claim.I jumped the gun there, forgetting you are English. Perhaps in England that is how they are viewed and handled. In the US, birth certificates are handled such that the legal parents are listed on the document. See here and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_adoption
See the part where it states an amended certificate is issued and the adoptive parents are assigned the roles, and this becomes the bottom line official document. This does contrast with how open adoption works in some states, in that the certificate is apparently not altered but the records are "sealed" and the child is prevented from gaining access to "identifying" information about their biological parents.
That way, you know who the biological parents are.
Originally Posted by :
I don't deny there is a shred of validity to this, but historically speaking this is an extremely rare occurrence. You're getting into a different area now. Keep in mind that some countries allow marriage between first cousins, such as Japan. While there may be some social stigmas and legal limitations on this in other nations, what is defined as "incest" varies between cultures. I for one happen to find anything where a distant relative marries another to be pretty disgusting, but that's not my decision what others do with themselves.
The original reason for marriage was to establish a legal bond between a father and his children - that is why adoption causes such potential problems, and that is why I consider Gay marriage to be nonsensical.I don't deny there is a shred of validity to this, but historically speaking this is an extremely rare occurrence. You're getting into a different area now. Keep in mind that some countries allow marriage between first cousins, such as Japan. While there may be some social stigmas and legal limitations on this in other nations, what is defined as "incest" varies between cultures. I for one happen to find anything where a distant relative marries another to be pretty disgusting, but that's not my decision what others do with themselves.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
There is a simple answer to this question. The Lesbian couple used a Sperm doner, therefore only one of the women in the couple is the child's mother - the father is the sperm doner. That should be reflected on the Birth Certificate.It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
If the other woman in the relationship wants to be the child's other legal guardian she should adopt it - but unlike a heterosexual marriage she should not be assumed to be a parent, because that is not physically possible.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I don't understand how giving two consenting adults the same benefits and authority as two other adults will irrevociably harm society.
If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.
I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function
I don't understand how giving two consenting adults the same benefits and authority as two other adults will irrevociably harm society.
If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.
I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I meant against the pervailing opinion in the thread, which was a pro stance.
I am inclined to agree with the civil union in leiu of calling it gay marrige. Not that I personally care what we call it in legalese but I feel like taking the word marrige out would expidite things. I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.
Not the child rearing is sole reason for a partnership but if we consider citizens to be the smallest unit of the state and families are responible for raising that unit I think the gov't has a vested interest in such things....or something like that.
The church most certainly does not have to perform a ceremony or even recognize the validity of thing but the government should
If I were a priest, I would happily perform a formal binding cermemony between two men or two women to recognise their relationship within the community. However, I would not call it marriage because a marriage involves one man, one woman, and the hope of children in the future.I meant against the pervailing opinion in the thread, which was a pro stance.
I am inclined to agree with the civil union in leiu of calling it gay marrige. Not that I personally care what we call it in legalese but I feel like taking the word marrige out would expidite things. I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.
Not the child rearing is sole reason for a partnership but if we consider citizens to be the smallest unit of the state and families are responible for raising that unit I think the gov't has a vested interest in such things....or something like that.
The church most certainly does not have to perform a ceremony or even recognize the validity of thing but the government should
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.
A Gay couple can't have children - one member of the couple can have children using a third party. Dress it up how you want, but the reality is that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are, within the matromonial parradigm, forms of infidelity.If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.
In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO