Well It's Democracy

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@8 August 2004 - 22:40
So J'pol, are you saying that a nationally recognized civil union be developed?

a hetersexual marriage license is valid in another state right?

I am saying that I believe "All men are created equal" and that as such everyone has the same rights. Regardless of Creed, Colour or Sexual Orientation.

Someone once said

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I believe that people are born with equal rights, they are entitled to be treated in a manner which is equal to all of their neighbours. Without fear or favour.

I do not recognize gay unions as a marriage in the eyes of God. However I recognize them to be of equal civil value as any other traditional marriage (or whatever word you want to use). I differentiate between my religious beliefs and my belief that all men are born equal, with the right to self-determination and freedom of expression.

I believe that if two men wish to make a legal commitment to one and other then they are as entitled as a man and woman to have this recognized by the State (I use that in the larger sense of the word).

I find this to be self evident and am not impressed by any argument which is based on the phrase "there just isn't anything we can do about it" or similar. If something is wrong you change it. See quote above with regard to change or abolish.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@8 August 2004 - 15:50
i'm saying equivilent rules have to be made because gay marriage and traditional aren't the same thing, and you know it.

you've said yourself it can't be holy. so what happens to the vows? does the lack of commitment to god mean a lack of commitment to each other? does it mean divorce is even easier?

The vows don't have to be religious. A hetrosexual couple can get married without any religious reference yet that holds the same standing of recognition as a church wedding...The same goes with divorce proceedings. A Gay "marriage" would be under the same rules.
You have asked questions before and the answer is and always be....they want the same rules for all....Equal...no better, no worse.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@8 August 2004 - 14:29


Find for me please any references I have made to religion?

If they are religious, and their religion informs their opinion, are they to be silenced?

Damned intolerant attitude, if you ask me.

It seems to me that the entire opposition to "gay marriage" is driven by religious attitudes.
Very few are capable of separating their religious and moral opinions as JP seems able to do.
Were his attitude more prevalent, this whole debate would be a non-issue.

J2, it's fine if religion informs people's opinion, the problem occurs when that religious opinion then becomes law.
Jerry Falwell can believe anything he damn well pleases...when his belief curtails my ability to to marry then he has exceeded his right to practice religion and instead assumed the right to project it upon anyone he pleases.
Even assuming that your beloved "majority" agrees with him ( and I'm only ceding this for the sake of debate) that does not make it correct...either legally or morally.

[spinningfreemanny]

Ultimately J'pol I think you've convinced me. I wince though at the idea of activist judges to make these social decisions; I think the U.S. Supreme court feelsthe same way due to their "hands off" rulings that they have had lately (ie. the "under God" ruling).

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Busyman@28 February 2004 - 07:44
believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.
I can't think of anything in the Constitution that takes rights away. You didn't have to put the racial card in there.

At the same time I doubt there will be an amendment to give gays the right TO marry in the Constitution either but the Constitution should not take away any rights.

[Snee]

Random thought...

I figure homosexuals should be allowed to marry by law anywhere, I don't quite see the problem, equality and all that.

But if a religion dictates it isn't allowed, then that should be respected too. Which means that they should be allowed all the legal status, tho' not the church-wedding before god-part, I suppose. Seeing as how freedom of religion is something that is also meant to be treasured, which means a church shouldn't be forced to rewrite the rules for the benefits of a select group of people.

If they want to do the church-wedding-thing, and it isn't allowed by their religion, I think they are free to pull a Luther, and start their own church, right?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by SnnY@9 August 2004 - 16:05
Random thought...

I figure homosexuals should be allowed to marry by law anywhere, I don't quite see the problem, equality and all that.

But if a religion dictates it isn't allowed, then that should be respected too. Which means that they should be allowed all the legal status, tho' not the church-wedding before god-part, I suppose. Seeing as how freedom of religion is something that is also meant to be treasured, which means a church shouldn't be forced to rewrite the rules for the benefits of a select group of people.

If they want to do the church-wedding-thing, and it isn't allowed by their religion, I think they are free to pull a Luther, and start their own church, right?

I have said as much in another thread mate.

Legal rights absolutely, my 100% support. However my Church does not recognize gay marriage, so it should not be coerced into performing one. I expect my rights to be upheld as much as the next man's.

Anyhow, why would people wish to belong to a Church which believed their lifestyle to be wrong.

If another Church is happy to perform such a ceremony. Then best of luck to the couple and the Church.

[Snee]

Oh sorry :">

It's the right way to go about it tho'.

[vidcc]

I Don't think anyone is trying to force churches to perform the service. So why raise the subject ? Churches have free will and their own rules The state cannot force a church to marry anyone.
A divorced person may find it hard to marry a second time in church. The catholic church denys divorce unless given special permission. So any catholic that divorces and re-marries is considered a bigamist by the church but not by law.
There has been instances where the law has overuled a religious practice and forced a change. One example is the mormon religion and multiple wives. But i cannot imagine any religion being forced to perform a ceromony that goes against the ethics of that religion.
I agree that many people use their religious beliefs as an objection and the church has through its spokesmen/women voiced objections. However many that object have no religion and just object to homosexuals so i don't see this as a religious issue rather an intollerance issue.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by SnnY@9 August 2004 - 18:00
Oh sorry :">

It's the right way to go about it tho'.

No need to apologise mate, I was just agreeing with you.