If a gay couple wants to marry in a church and church doctrine is against this, then I would strongly disagree with forcing churches to marry a gay couple. Legalising gay marriage may open the door to forcing churches to marry gay couples. If the marriage was purely civil, I’m less concerned.
People aren’t campaigning to have gay marriage forced into churches. Churches should have the right to decide who they marry within them. Gays should have the right to marry. Not every marriage has to happen at a traditional christian church (ie there would be some churches that would be more than happy to marry gays).
Fight for the right for gays to marry, and churches to decide who they allow to marry within them.[/quote]
There’s a push going on here in the states to force docs to do abortions even if they object on moral/philosophical/religious grounds. Who’s next?
If a gay couple wants to marry in a church and church doctrine is against this, then I would strongly disagree with forcing churches to marry a gay couple. Legalising gay marriage may open the door to forcing churches to marry gay couples. If the marriage was purely civil, I’m less concerned.
People aren’t campaigning to have gay marriage forced into churches. Churches should have the right to decide who they marry within them. Gays should have the right to marry. Not every marriage has to happen at a traditional christian church (ie there would be some churches that would be more than happy to marry gays).
Fight for the right for gays to marry, and churches to decide who they allow to marry within them.
There’s a push going on here in the states to force docs to do abortions even if they object on moral/philosophical/religious grounds. Who’s next?
[/quote]
That’s just wrong. The option of abortion is a couples choice. Not something that should be forced. Just like while gays should have the right to marry, no church should be forced to marry them.
EDIT: K read that wrong. Still disagree, Doctors shouldn’t have to do a procedure they aren’t comfortable with.
If a gay couple wants to marry in a church and church doctrine is against this, then I would strongly disagree with forcing churches to marry a gay couple. Legalising gay marriage may open the door to forcing churches to marry gay couples. If the marriage was purely civil, I’m less concerned.
People aren’t campaigning to have gay marriage forced into churches. Churches should have the right to decide who they marry within them. Gays should have the right to marry. Not every marriage has to happen at a traditional christian church (ie there would be some churches that would be more than happy to marry gays).
Fight for the right for gays to marry, and churches to decide who they allow to marry within them.
There’s a push going on here in the states to force docs to do abortions even if they object on moral/philosophical/religious grounds. Who’s next?
[/quote]
If they are public doctors then I would say then they should have to (actually I don’t care if they get another doctor to do it, as long as the patient isn’t inconvenienced, in a similar way that maybe a jewish doctor might not be asked to participate in a blood transfusion from a pig). If it’s a private doctor then I think it should be completely up to him.
I would campaign for gay marriage to be legal, but would campaign for churches to decide who gets married at churches.
I would campaign for abortion to be legal, and I would campaign for businesses not to have to be involved in them if they so chose.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There’s a push going on here in the states to force docs to do abortions even if they object on moral/philosophical/religious grounds. Who’s next?
[/quote]
Then it’s someone pushing for something that is never going to happen.
You cannot “force” a physician to do any procedure. With the acute shortage and poor distribution of physicians that is occurring…especially in highly litigious areas like Ob/Gyn…where there are fewer and fewer even going into the profession…this would be a requirement that could almost literally end a specialty.
(I take it that you have some “link” where Obama is trying to force this with his “socialist” agenda?)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You have a good point. But wouldn’t a civil ceremony do just as well?[/quote]
Yes, I think a civil ceremony would be fine as long as it conveyed the same responsibilities/privileges associated with straight marriage (especially at the federal level). It would add stability to the relationship, and would ultimately benefit any children the gay couple chooses to have.
I agree with you. No church should be required to marry a gay couple, if doing so contradicts their doctrines.
The recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage devoted significant time to discussing the rights of religious organizations not to participate in gay marriage. The ruling concluded:
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage - religious or otherwise - by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.
[quote]I’m trying to have an open mind with regard to this. I know I’m not famous here for being open-minded but it does happen once in a while.
[/quote]
Maine’s Governor just signed a gay marriage bill today. The ball is rolling.
As with Iowa, the bill doesn’t require religions to sanction gay marriage:
[quote]]Article I in the Maine Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.”
This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State.
It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine?s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Maine’s Governor just signed a gay marriage bill today. The ball is rolling.
As with Iowa, the bill doesn’t require religions to sanction gay marriage:
]Article I in the Maine Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.”
This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State.
It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine?s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.[/quote]
The basis of law is ethics. The basis of ethics is metaphysics. Does Man have a definite and precise nature, or is Man infinitely malleable? I think we can safely say that man has a definitive nature, certain defining characteristics. Otherwise, words have no meaning.
Whatever preserves/enhances Man as Man is the good. Whatever detracts from that is the evil. These concepts are not independent but relative to man. Certainly the good of Man differs from the good of a chicken (dinner).
Does gay marriage preserve or enhance Man as Man?
Does the word ‘marriage’ have a definitive meaning, or is it infinitely malleable?
"Remember the headlines…that claimed we were flocking to city hall and churches to get the deed done as courts legalized same-sex marriage in province after province? …It was a lie. Very few among us are eager to embrace marriage rights…
"Didn’t we just spend a decade and by some estimates $2 million to wage wage this fight? Didn’t we just put all our other major issues virtually on ice because some couples, a few lawyers, and a couple of out-of-touch lobby groups decided that same-sex marriage was the only thing that really mattered…
"Marriage is a heterosexual institution designed by the church, endorse by the state, with the intention of controlling the sexuality of women and by extension, their husbands…
"I don’t expect the wedding rate will pick up. We have something better in our relationships, something that allows for a variety of friendships, fuck buddies, lovers, sisters and ex’s. We don 't put all the pressures on one person…
“We don’t need the limitations of marriage. So we’re taking a pass. But what waste of time and money, and a tragic diversion of focus, in that decade-long fight.”
As Kirby suggests, being gay is about not marrying and being monogamous. It is farcical and tragic that heterosexual society should be sacrificed on the altar of gay marriage. Marriage-minded gays should be given a separate status with equal benefits and responsibilities.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Does gay marriage preserve or enhance Man as Man?
[/quote]
Gay marriage provides stability to society, and ultimately benefits both the couple and any children they may have. As such, it both preserves and enhances Man.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As Kirby suggests, being gay is about not marrying and being monogamous.[/quote]
Lol. That’s like randomly quoting a hetero who doesn’t want marriage, and extrapolating that to the broad conclusion that heterosexuals don’t believe in marriage and shouldn’t marry.
[quote]Marriage-minded gays should be given a separate status with equal benefits and responsibilities.
[/quote]
I would be fine with this. I don’t care what you call it, as long as we get the same responsibilities and benefits.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Most Gays Don’t want marriage…
"Remember the headlines…that claimed we were flocking to city hall and churches to get the deed done as courts legalized same-sex marriage in province after province? …It was a lie. Very few among us are eager to embrace marriage rights…
"Didn’t we just spend a decade and by some estimates $2 million to wage wage this fight? Didn’t we just put all our other major issues virtually on ice because some couples, a few lawyers, and a couple of out-of-touch lobby groups decided that same-sex marriage was the only thing that really mattered…
"Marriage is a heterosexual institution designed by the church, endorse by the state, with the intention of controlling the sexuality of women and by extension, their husbands…
"I don’t expect the wedding rate will pick up. We have something better in our relationships, something that allows for a variety of friendships, fuck buddies, lovers, sisters and ex’s. We don 't put all the pressures on one person…
“We don’t need the limitations of marriage. So we’re taking a pass. But what waste of time and money, and a tragic diversion of focus, in that decade-long fight.”
As Kirby suggests, being gay is about not marrying and being monogamous. It is farcical and tragic that heterosexual society should be sacrificed on the altar of gay marriage. Marriage-minded gays should be given a separate status with equal benefits and responsibilities.
I think this is a bullshit article. It’s about Canada. I was at a presentation at the Williams Institute back in the fall for CLE credit, and statistics universally show that the majority of gays in the U.S. would like the right to marry (not even civil unionize). Please try and post something relevant.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
As Kirby suggests, being gay is about not marrying and being monogamous.
Lol. That’s like randomly quoting a hetero who doesn’t want marriage, and extrapolating that to the broad conclusion that heterosexuals don’t believe in marriage and shouldn’t marry.
Marriage-minded gays should be given a separate status with equal benefits and responsibilities.
I would be fine with this. I don’t care what you call it, as long as we get the same responsibilities and benefits.[/quote]
I think more gays should actually think like you. I think there is too much of an effort to force social change and for recongition as social equals. When the focus should be obtaining full legal benefits.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
As Kirby suggests, being gay is about not marrying and being monogamous.
Lol. That’s like randomly quoting a hetero who doesn’t want marriage, and extrapolating that to the broad conclusion that heterosexuals don’t believe in marriage and shouldn’t marry.
Marriage-minded gays should be given a separate status with equal benefits and responsibilities.
I would be fine with this. I don’t care what you call it, as long as we get the same responsibilities and benefits.[/quote]
I think the notion of ‘marriage’ was introduced simply to piss off a lot of people. Most reasonable people would be fine with gay people having inheritance rights, visiting rights, and so on. Someone bundled all those up and decided that marriage (a hetero concept) would be ideal. All that did was anger many.
I think the whole nation got trolled. That being the case, my hat is off to them — the ultimate troll job.
Personally, I would support gay marriage adn don’t see gays as any less worthy. But I don’t think we’re ready as a country. But the lack of legal benefits (hosptial visitation,etc…) is a travesty.
Please no comments about contracts between parties to substitute for federal and state law granting rights. For the last time, contract law doesn’t work like that. Contracts don’t bind third parties not subject to the contract. It has to be state or federal law for external parties to have obligations to respect the partners wishes.
The California Supreme Court ruled that unless gays are allowed to marry, rather than calling it by some other name, they don’t enjoy equal protection under the constitution.
That may be true, but I share jsbrook’s pragmatism. I’m far more interested in equality than in terminology.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The California Supreme Court ruled that unless gays are allowed to marry, rather than calling it by some other name, they don’t enjoy equal protection under the constitution.
That may be true, but I share jsbrook’s pragmatism. I’m far more interested in equality than in terminology.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Does gay marriage preserve or enhance Man as Man?
Gay marriage provides stability to society, and ultimately benefits both the couple and any children they may have. As such, it both preserves and enhances Man.[/quote]
Part of the definition of Man is that, as a living thing, Man reproduces. All living things seek to reproduce themselves somehow. If they didn’t, they would have evolved out of existence.
It then logically follows that, if the main driver of someone’s sex impulse is NOT reproduction, there is something wrong with them.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
The California Supreme Court ruled that unless gays are allowed to marry, rather than calling it by some other name, they don’t enjoy equal protection under the constitution.
That may be true, but I share jsbrook’s pragmatism. I’m far more interested in equality than in terminology.
The voters have spoken.
[/quote]
But can unspeak. Particulary in California’s fucked referendum system that only requires a bare majority of the vote. The anti-gay marriage lobby was very effective this time. The pro-gay marriage probably will be in the future, and the voters will overturn the ban.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
The California Supreme Court ruled that unless gays are allowed to marry, rather than calling it by some other name, they don’t enjoy equal protection under the constitution.
That may be true, but I share jsbrook’s pragmatism. I’m far more interested in equality than in terminology.
