Homosexual marriage

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Told ya this would happen! Is it a homosexual marriage, a bisexual marriage, a menage a trois legalized, a shack-up with legal protections, or what?

Um... Inked, did you read the whole article through?

Originally Posted by article

As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or "cohabitation contract," the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

While they exchanged rings and such and virtually turned it into a wedding party, those things normally are not part of a samenlevingscontract. The rings and the honeymoon are meaningless in relation to the contract. It is just their personal way of celebrating it.

This is NOT a marriage, despite the look they gave it. And as the article states, this event has neither bearing or importance on the debate about homosexual marriage.

Samenlevingscontracten exist already far longer than the laws on homosexual marriage. They are not a new matter, nor are they linked to the law on homosexual marriage.

A legal marriage has to be arranged by the mayor of the town where you marry, a samenlevingscontract only by a notary. That already should give an indication of the difference.

(Although, until this article I was under the impression that samenlevingscontracten also were limited to two members. Maybe that's a difference between the Netherlands and Belgium. But regardless of that the article isn't clear on whether all three have signed the contract or only the two married ones.)

[inked]

Thanks for the info, Earniel. I read it but didn't know what it was precisely and I felt some Mooter with access to data would enlighten me. Thank you.

I think it was a contract or civil relationship now inclusive of 3 persons after the disruption of one marriage by divorce so that somebody could make it look like a wedding. Did I get it right?

Oh, and it was a double bi-sexual referent too.

[The Gaffer]

Food for thought:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...670280,00.html

This week sees the first gay civil partnerships being carried out in the UK. This means that gays can get official recognition of their relationship and the legal protections which are afforded to married people.

However, Peter Tatchell, a prominent gay rights activist, claims that the introduction of civil partnerships enshrines inequality between gay and straight relationships: straight people can't have civil partnerships, gay people can't have marriages.

Any thoughts?

[Jonathan]

Interesting article.

I guess allowing civil partnerships is not a final solution, but a way of approaching the though of making same-sex marriages legal. So even though some inequalities are indeed enschrined in law as a result of the civil partnerships, they are a step in the right direction ("right" as in pro-gay ). Besides, if there weren't some kind of inequalities, there wouldn't be any meaning to introduce same-sex marriages anyway and no one would be lobbying for it.

[inked]

http://www.interfax-religion.com/pri...ct=news&id=737

Another comment on the problem of homosexual "marriage".

[Count Comfect]

I have no problem with a religion saying that homosexuality is wrong religiously (although I will never belong to such a religion, and from what I've seen of the texts usually quoted I think they're being misinterpreted). But as far as state action goes, I feel it is very much wrong to prevent homosexual marriage.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

http://www.interfax-religion.com/pri...ct=news&id=737

Another comment on the problem of homosexual "marriage".

That doesn't seem like an Earth-shattering problem to me. If the Russian Orthodox Church doesn't feel like having relations with the Lutheran Church of Sweden, that's their own affair.

It's also their loss. From the little I know of the Church of Sweden, it sounds like a pretty rad institution!

edited to add: Count Comfect, I share your sentiments. If I thought that the Bible really said being gay was wrong, I'd leave the church.

[inked]

O, my gosh, not in Italy! (Hey, 50K protesters! Did that many show up for WWII?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4612802.stm

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That doesn't seem like an Earth-shattering problem to me. If the Russian Orthodox Church doesn't feel like having relations with the Lutheran Church of Sweden, that's their own affair.

It's also their loss. From the little I know of the Church of Sweden, it sounds like a pretty rad institution!

edited to add: Count Comfect, I share your sentiments. If I thought that the Bible really said being gay was wrong, I'd leave the church.

Now, Nurv, here's a little Canadian view and research!

http://www.marriagedebate.com/2006/0...ebate-some.htm

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Now, Nurv, here's a little Canadian view and research!

http://www.marriagedebate.com/2006/0...ebate-some.htm

Ooh, research! I'd like to see the results of The Future Families project. Very interesting.

This article reminds me of the fabulous book, "The English Harem", by Anthony McCarten. The book explores polygamy in a very thoughtful and interesting way.

[Nurvingiel]

*post to update thread*

Ladeda

[inked]

Nurv, is that your final answer to Canadian research or only that which you disagree with?

[Count Comfect]

There's only a single item of actual research result in that link:

Respondents were asked, "What is your view of people being allowed to have more than one marital partner at a time?" Some 20% of Canadians indicate that they are willing to accept polygamy. However, only 4% say that, apart from tolerating such behaviour, they personally approve of individuals having multiple marital partners. . ."

First, what is the distinction between "apart from tolerating such behavior" and "they personally approve?" It sounds like this means 1/5 of Canadians are willing not to make a fuss (tolerate) but not willing to at all endorse (approve) of polygamy. That doesn't seem at all like as big an issue as the article makes it; "Canadians really tolerant, even if not accepting" might be a good summary of that data. (Also, looking at the numbers, 4% of Canadians approve with a 3% margin of error. It could be as low as 1%).

Otherwise, it's just a rehash of traditional arguments about how homosexual marriage is a "slippery slope." I think the reference in the National Post is a pretty good summary of the counterargument to that

legally-speaking, one involves the question of whether or not monogamy is reserved for heterosexuals, the other whether or not monogamy itself is permissible

Except you should really substitute "is enforceable" or "can be mandated by law" in place of "is permissible."

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv, is that your final answer to Canadian research or only that which you disagree with?

What? No, I don't really disagree with this article.

I don't have any problem at all with people asking for polygamy to be legalised. Everyone involved would have to agree (it said in the article) to the marriage, just like current marriage.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There's only a single item of actual research result in that link:


First, what is the distinction between "apart from tolerating such behavior" and "they personally approve?" It sounds like this means 1/5 of Canadians are willing not to make a fuss (tolerate) but not willing to at all endorse (approve) of polygamy. That doesn't seem at all like as big an issue as the article makes it; "Canadians really tolerant, even if not accepting" might be a good summary of that data. (Also, looking at the numbers, 4% of Canadians approve with a 3% margin of error. It could be as low as 1%).

Otherwise, it's just a rehash of traditional arguments about how homosexual marriage is a "slippery slope." I think the reference in the National Post is a pretty good summary of the counterargument to that
Except you should really substitute "is enforceable" or "can be mandated by law" in place of "is permissible."

"A recent major study I carried out for the Vanier Institute of the Family on what Canadians want from family life anticipated such a possible expansion of the concept of marriage. Entitled The Future Families Project, the study examined a wide range of family issues, in the process exploring not only how Canadians view same-sex marriage but also how they feel about people having more than one marriage partner.

The study involved a comprehensive national survey of 2,093 Canadians that was completed in August of 2003. The survey's size and highly representative sample permit accurate generalizations to the population (within about 3 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times in 20)."

Since there was only one item mentioned it's NOT research, CC?

[inked]

Interesting agenda, but the heterosexuals gotta work it out without the GLBT's 'cause we're gettting tired:

http://descant.classicalanglican.net/?p=1398

The linked article is long from the above site which hits the gay points only.

[Spock]

PLEASE REMEMBER


We have TWO separate topics. Marriage and Homosexual Marriage

Keep the posts to the proper one please.

[Count Comfect]

Oh, sorry Inked, didn't see your response there originally.

"A recent major study I carried out for the Vanier Institute of the Family on what Canadians want from family life anticipated such a possible expansion of the concept of marriage. Entitled The Future Families Project, the study examined a wide range of family issues, in the process exploring not only how Canadians view same-sex marriage but also how they feel about people having more than one marriage partner.

The study involved a comprehensive national survey of 2,093 Canadians that was completed in August of 2003. The survey's size and highly representative sample permit accurate generalizations to the population (within about 3 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times in 20)."

Since there was only one item mentioned it's NOT research, CC?

Yes, there is a study. But most of the article is supposition and opinion. The one actual fact/data point provided FROM the study was the one I mentioned - and the rest of my argument was separating the actual fact given from the spin given with it. That is, they only gave us one result, and it was about toleration, not about acceptance. They then proceeded to act as if it were about acceptance.

You can't just say "I did a study," then go off and give an argument without actual support from the study but hide under the argument that somewhere in there might have been data. You have to provide the data, and I don't think the data provided supported the article.

[inked]

NationalReview article on the Nordic experiment with lots of data references!

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/...0602280810.asp



And, the French are always correct on political stuff, right? but what about this,
http://merecomments.typepad.com/mere..._kiss_off.html

[Nurvingiel]

Since when is France the world's political compass? I mean, who thinks that?

Canada is, in case anyone's curious.

I'm afraid that if you want me to read anymore articles (I just did your PM one and analyzed it with reasonable detail), you are going to have to start the discussion. I just can't get motivated if the original poster of an article doesn't start off the discussion with some relevant comment or a synopsis of key points.

I'm not doing all the work for you!


Edited because the Reduncancy Department of Reduncancy called and they want their redundancy back.