Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Galleleo]

i don't know if anyone has said this...

the idea of a marriage was first introduced by religious figures as the unification between a MAN AND A WOMAN. NOT A WOMAN AND A WOMAN. NOT A MAN AND A MAN. That being said, no to gay "marriage", yes to "civil union" or whatever you want to call it.

This is not very different from Hitler telling Jewish people they couldn't use the normal stores but had to use the Jewish stores, or park benches saying that Jewish people weren't allowed to sit on it.

I don't know how it works in the US, but in the Netherlands you get married before the law, in city hall, performed by someone from the government. This is your legal marriage, this is the marriage that gives you those rights. If you want, you can then also get married in a church or wherever performed by a priest, this is the marriage before god. But my point is, marriage is not a solely religious word. To make that claim is just wrong.

Calling marriage different is the same as making a separation based on race.

Also, Izor.. you clearly show how you feel and at the same time you are part of the problem. By constantly referring to them as faggots you are teaching your children (please don't have any, ever) that they are wrong and that it is ok for them to bully them, to beat them, to do whatever because hey, they are faggots anyway. Learn to show respect.

[kthx]

Yeah izor, stop insulting those faggots.

[raizin]

Its east to solve this.

Gays want the same benefits as married couples.

Churches dont want gays to use the word Married.

Fucking negotiate and stfu about it. They both ultimately can get what they want, but gays are so hell bent on being in a "MARRIAGE". Just be happy to call it something else and enjoy your new benefits.

[genocidal]

So be it, the whole argument from Christians about gay marriage is the "marriage" portion of it, if it was a gay union sanctioned by the state and not the church, that has every government ruling from a marriage in it but leaving out god it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't gays wanting rights, its gays attacking the church because the church is by the writings of god against gayness.

This is categorically wrong. There is nothing correct about what you think the debate is about.

Let's start with the religious aspect first. The state has no ability to tell a church whether or not they can marry (or "unionize") gay people in their church. I'll say it one more time: the government has no right to tell a church what to do. At best it's a state issue which would end up being overturned when brought before a federal court because, after all, separation of church and state is a two-way street. It means both that religion may not enter the state's domain and that the state may not enter religion's domain.

To segue into my next point, why do you think there is a huge debate around preachers talking politics from the pulpit? You guessed it! Separation of church and state. Why does the state cares about separation of church and state on this one issue but not as much on others (like 10 Commandments in front of courthouses)? You guessed it! Economics (read: taxes).

Which brings me to my second point about how you're totally mischaracterizing your own opinion on the debate: it's the economy, stupid! (Thanks Carville.) The government doesn't want to give tax breaks to gay couples which is the only thing marriage means as far as the state is concerned. Sure people you listen to pay lip service to marriage "being between a man and a woman because the Bible says so," but that doesn't fucking matter as far as the state is concerned because they only have the ability to tax.

Any gay couple can get married in a church willing to perform the ceremony, it's just that the state won't recognize that marriage in the legal sense. The debate is over the legal sense, not some religious sense. The fact that people like wark muddle these two up confuses the debate and makes people inject their emotions into it, which is exactly what evangelicals want. It's a brilliant strategy because people don't want to think, they want to feel.

Because I really want wark to understand my point I'm going to give a reader's digest version of what I just typed:

1) Separation of church and state means two things: no church in state and no state in church.
2) The state, thus, only has power to control marriage in the legal sense - which means taxes. The real debate is about economics.
3) Conservative evangelicals confuse the political and the religious in order to make people think they are logically connected by, ironically, appealing to their emotions. This is incorrect.

[Epinephrine]

How do you figure? Same sex couples are not 'mom and dad' they're 'mom and mom' or 'dad and dad'

Uh think about it for a sec. A gay person can perfectly well read a book that says 'mom and dad' and not be offended, just as a white person can read a book that has a 'black person' as a character and not be offended. You're making a problem out of nothing.

[Epinephrine]

Umm, I would agree with some sort of bond being allowed to homosexual couples that would allow these things, however I do not agree that they should be "married" in a church. The term marriage is in the bible between a man and a woman, and a preacher who has sworn an oath to obey and preach the word of god to pronounce that a man and a man or a woman and a woman are now one in the eyes of god is just wrong. If gay people want the right to see their companion in the hospital thats fine, if they want a US document saying they are a couple that is fine, but if they want a religious document saying that they are together I disagree with it. The fact that homosexuals are taking this battle to the religious aspect of it is the problem with it, why don't they try for something along the lines of "Union Papers" signifying that they are together and just stay away from the religious part of it? Then both sides get what they want.

That's nice... too bad marriages under the state (the issue that we're all talking about here) are legal documents which are separate from religion. You can get married at city hall if you want, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. In fact the entire debate has almost nothing to do with religion, because in places where gay marriage is legal (i.e. Canada), gays get married at City Hall anyway, because very few if any religious institution will actually sign their certificates!

No one is forcing churches to allow gays to marry, and as Geno said the state cannot force that. Conversely churches may choose to do whatever they want in 'marrying' someone, but the state does not recognize it unless the official legal document is signed and submitted to the government.

[kthx]

That's nice... too bad marriages under the state (the issue that we're all talking about here) are legal documents which are separate from religion. You can get married at city hall if you want, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. In fact the entire debate has almost nothing to do with religion, because in places where gay marriage is legal (i.e. Canada), gays get married at City Hall anyway, because very few if any religious institution will actually sign their certificates!

No one is forcing churches to allow gays to marry, and as Geno said the state cannot force that. Conversely churches may choose to do whatever they want in 'marrying' someone, but the state does not recognize it unless the official legal document is signed and submitted to the government.

\

A civil registrar who refuses to officiate at partnerships between same-sex couples, claiming that it is “sinful” and against her religion, has brought a legal case that could have implications for ceremonies conducted throughout the country.

Lillian Ladele, 47, a Christian, said yesterday that “as a matter of religious conscience” she could not perform civil partnerships for gay couples.

She has accused Islington council, in North London, of religious discrimination and victimisation because it asked her to perform the ceremonies as part of her £31,000-a-year job.

Employment lawyers said that the case, which has angered gay rights groups, could affect councils throughout the country. It is expected to lead to a landmark ruling over whether employees can be required to act against their consciences.

More than 18,000 same-sex ceremonies are performed each year under the Civil Partnership Act, which came into force in December 2005.

Clare Murray, of the employment specialists CM Murray LLP, told The Times that Ms Ladele’s case could affect the way that councils throughout Britain organise their civil ceremonies. “They are all governed by the same legislation,” she said. Even if Islington did lose, other councils might be able to argue that they were justified in requiring registrars to officiate for same-sex couples.

Ms Ladele said that Islington council was forcing her to choose between her beliefs and keeping her job by requiring her to undertake civil partnership duties. Giving evidence yesterday, she told the employment tribunal in Central London: “I hold the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others and that this is the God-ordained place for sexual relations. It creates a problem for any Christian if they are expected to do or condone something that they see as sinful. I feel unable to facilitate directly the formation of a union that I sincerely believe is contrary to God’s law.”

More than 600 gay couples have had civil partnership ceremonies in Islington, making it Britain’s third-most popular borough for the service.

Ms Ladele, who has worked for the council for 16 years, alleged that she was accused of being homophobic by gay colleagues at Islington town hall and was shunned by staff after refusing to carry out civil partnerships.

She claimed that she was “ridiculed” by her boss, the superintendent registrar Helen Mendez-Childs, when she raised her concerns about the new ceremonies in August 2004.

Ms Ladele said that her superior had told her that her stance was akin to a registrar refusing to marry a black person.

For 15 months she swapped with colleagues to avoid the ceremonies. Formal complaints were made about her in 2006. Ms Ladele, who said that she was surprised that colleagues were offended, said that the council gave her an ultimatum to carry out the ceremonies or face being dismissed for gross misconduct.

She said that, to “punish” her for a principled stance, she was denied the chance to preside over lucrative weddings staged at special premises. “There was no respect whatsoever for my religious beliefs,” she said.

n 2006, Ms Ladele and another female registrar, who shared similar beliefs, were formally accused by two colleagues of “discriminating against the homosexual community”. An internal disciplinary investigation as to whether she was guilty of misconduct began in May 2007.

Ms Ladele said that staff started to act in a “different, hostile way towards me”. “I continued to be civil towards everyone. People would just blank me. It hurt so badly,” she said. She claimed that before the furore she had been conducting about fifty marriages a year but was then allocated as few eight per year.

Britain’s 1,700 registrars were effectively freelance and could opt out of ceremonies until last December, when they were brought under the control of town halls.

Ben Summerskill, of the gay rights group Stonewall, said that public servants were paid to “uphold the law of the land” and could not discriminate. “Doubtless there were those 40 years ago who claimed a moral objection to mixed marriages between those of different ethnic origin,” he said.

Mike Judge, a spokesman for the Christian Institute, said that the matter was “an important case for religious liberty”. He said: “Other occupations allow conscientious objections. No homosexual couple is being denied their right to marriage, because other registrars are performing them.”

Islington council denies religious discrimination or victimisation, and claims that Ms Ladele’s stance breaches both its dignity-for-all policy and its code of conduct for employees.

[Izor]

Tell that to the faggots that get offended by their kids only seeing stories with 'mom and dad' instead of 'dad and dad' and keep bitching about it. You're taking this out on me when I'm not the one whining about it

[Liquid Blue]

Stop posting news articles, just give the links

[Epinephrine]

Tell that to the faggots that get offended by their kids only seeing stories with 'mom and dad' instead of 'dad and dad' and keep bitching about it. You're taking this out on me when I'm not the one whining about it

I don't see any gays protesting about that. What I DO see are conservative people afraid of gays, pretending that gays are just as prejudiced as they are, and saying that gays would be offended if 'mom and dad' was mentioned, just as they are so offended if gays are mentioned in schools. The old switch around the argument to the other side even though you're inventing the argument trick.

[kthx]

It doesn't matter if I post an article or a link, because either way it completely destroys libepephineranal terrible arguments.

Epine you are what is wrong with the world, you put perverts and degenerates and prop them up to be the ones who are the good citizens. People like you are the reason why we can't give child molesters the lethal injection.

[Liquid Blue]

This is a debate, not a news article repository

if you think the article has relevant information, post a link. Otherwise sum it up in your own words.

[Summa]

in reference to wark's article, she obviously shouldn't work at her position. there is a separation of church and state and if she can't separate her religion from the duties she has to preform as a state official then she shouldn't work in her position. and i am sorry but from what i see all the conservative evangelicals can ever muster as a counterargument is in reference to the word marriage and its religious implications. i find it funny how a simple word and a belief behind a word can cause so much strife. as for this entire issue, gen is right, its all economics. that is the only reason why 2 men or 2 women can't get married legally by the state. and that to me is just plain sad.

[genocidal]

It doesn't matter if I post an article or a link, because either way it completely destroys libepephineranal terrible arguments.

Epine you are what is wrong with the world, you put perverts and degenerates and prop them up to be the ones who are the good citizens. People like you are the reason why we can't give child molesters the lethal injection.

Dude listen: what I (and Epi) posted was not arguing with your stance at all. I am showing you why your stance doesn't matter because that's not what the debate is about. The debate is about tax breaks for gay marriages, or no tax breaks. The semantics argument is a red herring used to fool people like you into bringing emotions into their viewpoint on the debate. Oddly enough, you and I functionally agree on this matter.

So exactly why the fuck are you posting articles about British retards who take jobs that conflict with their religious beliefs?

[Squeezer]

So be it, the whole argument from Christians about gay marriage is the "marriage" portion of it, if it was a gay union sanctioned by the state and not the church, that has every government ruling from a marriage in it but leaving out god it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't gays wanting rights, its gays attacking the church because the church is by the writings of god against gayness.

say a church is accepting of gays and allows homosexual couples to wed there. Would you be against that? In your eyes would that be a union not recognized in the eyes of God? I'm genuinely curious.

edit: great pardise is here. fantastic argument on the way.