Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

Go ahead and try to convince people of your view, then To me, it sounds like that would just translate to rule of the strongest

[Artanis]

It is still a mystery to me why anyone, especially Christians, will not permit a marriage between two people who love each other and want to live together in a lifelong committed relationship as a marriage is.

[The last sane person]

I agree some what. I do not think that it should be called "marriage", for me that is between an adult man and woman. But I do believe that two people who love eachother (of the same sex) should be able to enjoy the same coverage as a married couple. Why not? I dont know about christianity, but its not Jesus handing out tax benefits and such, but the American government.

And as for tyranny, well, if we didnt just leave it up to the judges to deliver their judgement....to hell with the American legal system. That is why America has judges. Lets not forget. There is also this thing called an appeal and taking the judgement back to court infront of ANOTHER, yet human, JUDGE.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My solution is to let people vote - one person, one vote. It's not perfect - but it's much less subject to abuse, IMO.

Sounds great, except that Hitler was voted into power. If you allow people to vote on every issue, that would really be a recipe for anarchy.

And it is subject to abuse. Many people don't come into contact with gays and get their views without any knowledge of the human reality behind the story. Giving them the right to veto the life choices of a minority is, IMO, abuse.

A judge is not issuing a political view; s/he interprets the law as it stands. S/he can bring about a change in the law where a case arises which exposes a conflict or inconsistency between laws.

This would seem to be a classic case: US citizens enjoy a consitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So a vote against gay marriage is a restriction of those rights, and therefore you need a legal interpretation.

[Embladyne]

Rian, thank you for creating this thread. I think it will help keep some of the debating cleared. The GLB thread has a purpose, but it's so easy to get lost in multiple comflicts and general bad feelings.

--------------------------------------------

My thoughts on marriage are to remove the legal power of priests to issue marriage licences. I believe that faith is am important part of peoples' lives, but it still bothers me that we in the US insist that there is a separation of church and state while it is quite obvioius, to me, that there is not really that great of a separation. Ok, take that to the thread it belongs, sorry.

*****

When it comes to legal marriage, I feel that all consenting adults should have the right to marry another adult of their choice. This is to ensure legal rights that go along with marriage. It really sucks (an understatement) when your beloved is dying, or otherwise ill, and you are denied visitation rights. Or when they do die, and you have no say in their memorial, or the property that they shared with you.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sounds great, except that Hitler was voted into power. If you allow people to vote on every issue, that would really be a recipe for anarchy.

And it is subject to abuse. Many people don't come into contact with gays and get their views without any knowledge of the human reality behind the story. Giving them the right to veto the life choices of a minority is, IMO, abuse.

A judge is not issuing a political view; s/he interprets the law as it stands. S/he can bring about a change in the law where a case arises which exposes a conflict or inconsistency between laws.

This would seem to be a classic case: US citizens enjoy a consitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So a vote against gay marriage is a restriction of those rights, and therefore you need a legal interpretation.

I never claimed it was perfect, Gaffer Yet I still think it's the best possible system - the least evil of evils, as it were. For there's a wider pool to choose from, and the odds are greater that good people will prevail, IMO. What if you get a terrible judge?

[Rían]

You're welcome, Em I prob. can't post much here until next week, due to a difficult situation I'm in the middle of - I just can't put together the thoughtful posts that this thread deserves. I can only manage short ones now. But you guys go ahead, and I'll jump in soon

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're welcome, Em I prob. can't post much here until next week, due to a difficult situation I'm in the middle of - I just can't put together the thoughtful posts that this thread deserves. I can only manage short ones now. But you guys go ahead, and I'll jump in soon

I hope things get sorted out for you RÃ*an.

What if you get a terrible judge, you ask? Court decisions can be challenged (in very brief. I'm sure it's much more complex in our respective systems).

What if a tyrant is elected (Hitler et al), as the Gaffer pointed out? You can't un-elect someone. What if the majority determines the rights of the minority? Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[Rían]

thanks

[The Wizard from Milan]

Once again. I decided to restrain myself to avoid to inflame the discussion and deleted my own post

[Jonathan]

I must agree with the Gaffer and Nurvingiel - I can't stress enough how important I think it is that a majority can't be allowed to determine the rights of a minority (hmm, I'm sure I've stated this in another thread, some time ago. DéjÃ* vu).

I don't think it's the Christians' or heterosexuals' business how homosexuals marry. Those who say gay marriage is a threat to society - that's just seem weird to me. Now If that was the case, I think it would be justified to be against homosexual marriage. But it's not the case

Anyway what I wanted to say is that in a democracy, it is very possible to protect the rights of the minorities without hurting the democracy. The majority always has to decide, but it doesn't always have to use that power to state what's best for a minority. Live and let live.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Anyway what I wanted to say is that in a democracy, it is very possible to protect the rights of the minorities without hurting the democracy. The majority always has to decide, but it doesn't always have to use that power to state what's best for a minority. Live and let live.

Well the democracy is controlled by the majority - (and in America - while protecting the minority) - but that doesn't mean that judges should be making legislature. As far as I'm concerned - they overstep their bounds. They are to carry out the laws of the legislature - which is the ELECTED body. If something is deamed UNCONSTITUTIONAL - then it is overturned. But contrary to everyone's belief - marriage is being defined as a marriage between a man and a woman, it is up to the majority to say whether they want to REDEFINE marriage to include gay people.


I have said this before - I support civil unions - with the right of adoption, health care and hospital visitations - I do not agree with redefining marriage though as between same sex couples.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

...
But contrary to everyone's belief - marriage is being defined as a marriage between a man and a woman, it is up to the majority to say whether they want to REDEFINE marriage to include gay people.

Is marriage not the religious institution, and civil unions the government marriage licences?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I have said this before - I support civil unions - with the right of adoption, health care and hospital visitations - I do not agree with redefining marriage though as between same sex couples.

I think we agree with each other, even though, after all this time, I'm still confused about the whole civil union/marriage thing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Is marriage not the religious institution, and civil unions the government marriage licences?


I think we agree with each other, even though, after all this time, I'm still confused about the whole civil union/marriage thing.

Civil unions are confusing because each state defines them differently basically. There is civil unions - but I believe it can be different than marriage. New Jersey has domestic partnership - which is similar to civil union (we also have civil union) - gives a lot of the benfits - and basically allows two people living together certain rights - such as hospital visitation and things.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Civil unions are confusing because each state defines them differently basically. There is civil unions - but I believe it can be different than marriage. New Jersey has domestic partnership - which is similar to civil union (we also have civil union) - gives a lot of the benfits - and basically allows two people living together certain rights - such as hospital visitation and things.

Thanks JD. I understand your previous post a lot better now.

If I was American, I would probably be voting to change marriage to be two consenting adults.

Why do you have three forms of legal marriage though?

[Count Comfect]

In the United States, isn't "marriage" (as legally defined) the state of having obtained a marriage license and having your marriage notarized by an official of the state vested with that power? (note: those officials are generally also priests/rabbis/other religious authorities)

In which case, what reason is there for denying the right to engage in that practice to homosexual couples? Clearly, no one should force a Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or etc) religious group to recognize such a union as religiously valid, but why should the government, separately, not recognize it as legally valid? Just like Catholics can legally be divorced even though that Church does not officially sanction divorce religiously.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I don't think it's the Christians' or heterosexuals' business how homosexuals marry.

But it's a homosexual's business (along with everyone else) how heterosexuals marry!

(IOW, if enough people in a state thought that the legal age for marrying should be lowered, it would get on a ballot, and then homosexuals (along with everyone else, of course) would get to vote on it.)

My point is this : in the USA, it's EVERYONE'S business how marriage is defined. It's NOT a case of heterosexuals and Christians having an exclusive say on whether or not homosexuals can marry each other! EVERYONE (of legal voting status, of course) gets to vote on this issue, just like EVERYONE would get to vote about lowering the legal age to marry, if it got onto a ballot.

Jonathan, I imagine you and I agree on some, if not most, of the definitions of who should be able to marry. We BOTH base our opinions on what we think is good and/or harmful. Many Mormons in the US sincerely think polygamy is fine. I happen to disagree. Are you going to tell me that as a Christian, I shouldn't force my POV upon Mormons, if polygamy comes up for a vote in my state? My point is that different people have different opinions on what types of sexual relationships are good and bad.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(IOW, if enough people in a state thought that the legal age for marrying should be lowered, it would get on a ballot, and then homosexuals (along with everyone else, of course) would get to vote on it.)

is this supposed to be a reason why homosexuals should be kept away from marriage?

[Rían]

No, it's just making the point that everyone has opinions on how marriage should be defined, and can vote on it if it came up to vote and they had an opinion in a particular area, such as age of people marrying.

Right now, the issue up for vote in the US is changing the current definition of marriage in a particular area - IOW, changing it so men can marry men and women marry women. And good people have differing opinions on the issue. Another time, it might be changing something in another area, such as the current definition of minimum age requirements for someone that wants to marry, or changing the number of people allowed in a marriage. And good people have different opinions on the issue. It's NOT a matter of only Christians and heterosexuals being able to cast a vote, and no one else!

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My point is this : in the USA, it's EVERYONE'S business how marriage is defined. It's NOT a case of heterosexuals and Christians having an exclusive say on whether or not homosexuals can marry each other! EVERYONE (of legal voting status, of course) gets to vote on this issue, just like EVERYONE would get to vote about lowering the legal age to marry, if it got onto a ballot.

The flaw with this specific argument is that lowering the legal age for marrying would apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, while prohibiting marriage between homosexuals affects homosexuals only.