Same Sex Marriage

[Azure]

I say the government should get out of marriage completely.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

I say the government should get out of marriage completely.

Me and my 7 wives agree

[Daradon]

One of the few things that Chretien did that I liked. When this was still being discussed here, even I was of the mindset, 'let's just put it to a referendum.' I would vote for extending all rights including the title marriage, but if the majority feels that isn't correct who am I to say?

But I watched the debate about it and Chretien simply said that a referendum wouldn't do because, (paraphrased) 'you can't leave the freedoms of a minority up to the will of a majority.' And of course that is correct. We don't have the right to decide on anyone else freedoms, especially if we ourselves already enjoy them.

One of the few intelligent things the guys said...

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Nope.

The pro same sex marriage crowd would respond with something along the lines of "Holding the word and the feeling of the word 'marriage' away from gay people is treating them differently and encouraging others to treat them and look upon them as second class citizens."

I have no problem with them getting "married", but as a catholic I have a problem with them using the term marriage which is a sacred word for us.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't particularly like same sex marriage... but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. Consenting adults should be able to live as they choose as long as they aren't hurting anyone else and I can't see any reasonable argument for how same sex marriage infringes on anyone else's rights. I think people who don't like it and want to ban it need to grow thicker skin.

There has been a lot of fear mongering about how same sex marriage makes hetero marriage less meaningful, or about how clergy will be thrown in jail if they refuse to conduct same sex marriages... all garbage imo.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Azure

I say the government should get out of marriage completely.

I'll agree with this. The idea of marriage in the first place was never created for the purpose of tax breaks, adoption rights, etc. The government should merely recognize civil unions (straight and gay) for the purpose of those things, and leave the marriage term to be applied by churches, other religious groups, or whoever else cares about having a bond with a person that is more then just tax breaks and adoption rights, etc.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by cSpooge

I have no problem with them getting "married", but as a catholic I have a problem with them using the term marriage which is a sacred word for us.

Sacred - really? Divorce rate is 50%.

What if you are a gay Catholic?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

One of the few things that Chretien did that I liked. When this was still being discussed here, even I was of the mindset, 'let's just put it to a referendum.' I would vote for extending all rights including the title marriage, but if the majority feels that isn't correct who am I to say?

But I watched the debate about it and Chretien simply said that a referendum wouldn't do because, (paraphrased) 'you can't leave the freedoms of a minority up to the will of a majority.' And of course that is correct. We don't have the right to decide on anyone else freedoms, especially if we ourselves already enjoy them.

One of the few intelligent things the guys said...

Except and without stepping into the Gay Marriage debate, which I don't care about, and doesn't impact me in any way, but Chretien's statement is anti-democratic at best. It opens the way for the protection of a lot of things that might be unsavory. At some point in a democracy, the rights of the majority have to be respected, and you can't just steam roller over the majority on pet causes.

If you open things up to a referendum then you have to live up to those results.

An example would have been the Quebec referendum, under Chretien's statement, the vote wouldn't have mattered at all if the minority (those who voted to seperate wanted to ignore the will of the majority)

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by cSpooge

I have no problem with them getting "married", but as a catholic I have a problem with them using the term marriage which is a sacred word for us.

I'm an atheist. Do you have a problem with my wife and I using the term marriage?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

Sacred - really? Divorce rate is 50%.

What if you are a gay Catholic?

JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY

Sorry couldn't resist.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I'll agree with this. The idea of marriage in the first place was never created for the purpose of tax breaks, adoption rights, etc. The government should merely recognize civil unions (straight and gay) for the purpose of those things, and leave the marriage term to be applied by churches, other religious groups, or whoever else cares about using the term.

See this makes a lot of sense. But it would be too hard to change and would piss to many people off.

It would be fair, and there would be churches gay people could get married at, the amount of religions that do it is increasing. But I think it was cause WAY too many problems and anger too many people on both sides.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

I say the government should get out of marriage completely.

I can't remember what comedian it was, but he had a bit about marriage posing the questions (paraphrasing); "If marriage didn't already exist, would you invent it?" and; "Is your love so good that you need to get the government involved in it to make it legit"?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Nope.

The pro same sex marriage crowd would respond with something along the lines of "Holding the word and the feeling of the word 'marriage' away from gay people is treating them differently and encouraging others to treat them and look upon them as second class citizens."

I guess I am lost as to why changing the name of the license for ALL couples would irk the same sex crowd.

No matter what court decision they have, the King James Bible definition of marriage will not change nor anyone who believes that will change thier mind because of the some BS court or government decision.

I just simply propose to change the secular governmental name of the license.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except and without stepping into the Gay Marriage debate, which I don't care about, and doesn't impact me in any way, but Chretien's statement is anti-democratic at best. It opens the way for the protection of a lot of things that might be unsavory. At some point in a democracy, the rights of the majority have to be respected, and you can't just steam roller over the majority on pet causes.

If you open things up to a referendum then you have to live up to those results.

An example would have been the Quebec referendum, under Chretien's statement, the vote wouldn't have mattered at all if the minority (those who voted to seperate wanted to ignore the will of the majority)

I'm not sure that really qualifies as civil rights. They aren't being subject to a treatment that isn't fair or are being denied something someone else has.

If they really don't want to be part of Canada, but people don't agree with them separating the province, they are allowed to move.

The referendum was important there because it wasn't a civil freedoms issue. It was a question of the desires of the province as a whole, and what should be done regarding it.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I guess I am lost as to why changing the name of the license for ALL couples would irk the same sex crowd.

No matter what court decision they have, the King James Bible definition of marriage will not change nor anyone who believes that will change thier mind because of the some BS court or government decision.

I just simply propose to change the secular governmental name of the license.

Marriage is a loaded term in our culture - legally, emotionally, spiritually. Many people dream of getting married, not civil unioned.

The fact that is constantly being debated, shows how important the term marriage is to many people.

[MarchHare]

I just simply propose to change the secular governmental name of the license.

Why should they? Since when is marriage part of the exclusive domain of the religious? The concept of marriage is a tradition that dates back thousands of years and transcends all the world's many societies, cultures, and religions.

[Edit]
Ditto to what troutman said above.

[Daradon]

ADDITION: Moreover by your logic (in your example where you respond to my point, not YOUR actual feelings and logic, I know) if the separatists really had the right to separate regardless of the will of the rest of the people in their own province, they would be impeading on the rest of the provinces rights.

Gay people are not impeading on anyone's rights by asking for equal treatment.

So no, it's not really the same thing. One (the gay marriage issue) is a civil rights question, the other (Quebec separation) is a democratic question. Both were handled properly IMO.

EDIT: Made the addition in a separate post cause I didn't know if you were already quoting me or not and didn't want the addition to show up in the old post after an argument had already been made and cause confusion that way. Sorry for that.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by troutman

Sacred - really? Divorce rate is 50%.

What if you are a gay Catholic?

Priests can't marry...therefore it is a non-issue

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

See this makes a lot of sense. But it would be too hard to change and would piss to many people off.

It would be fair, and there would be churches gay people could get married at, the amount of religions that do it is increasing. But I think it was cause WAY too many problems and anger too many people on both sides.

I don't really care if it pisses over the whole world.

The government being involved just screws everything up.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by troutman

Marriage is a loaded term in our culture - legally, emotionally, spiritually. Many people dream of getting married, not civil unioned.

Marriage is a ceremony and it can continue to be whatever it is to people. I just dont see what the secular legal license term has to do with the ceremony itself. If it is for religious reasons, are people faith so fragile that they need a govermental document certifying it - I guess that goes hand in hand with the 50% divorce rate.

I dont know about you, but I dont know many women who dream of getting a marriage license, they dream of the marriage ceremony. I guess I am the minority in thinking that a small name change on the license would solve this whole mess. Its really sad IMO that we spend time talking about this when it could be solved so easily.