ACMESkydiver 0 #51 August 18, 2004 QuoteQuote>I think a homosexual couple should be able to have the same rights as a > married couple, but to get married in a church, Masque, or other religious > temple is an insult to that religion if the religion denounces homosexuality. I agree 100%. I could care less what religions do - what matters is that a gay couple get afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple. I agree with this too. There should be "legal" marriages (or civil unions) and then there should be "religious" marriages. Gay couples should have the same rights with a legal marriage that a straight couple would have, and I think it should be up to each religion to decide if they want to recognize a gay marriage or not. There already are differences in 'legal' definitions of marriage versus spiritual...the Catholic church did not recognize divorce at all for quite some time...now, there must be very certain circumstances in which the church will grant an annulment (which means absolutely nothing legally.) So for a Catholic, you can have a legal divorce from your spouse, however if it was not sanctioned by the church (in other words, the church also granted their own 'annulment') then you are still married in the church's eyes and the Catholic church will not allow you to be married again by a priest.~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #52 August 18, 2004 QuoteThere already are differences in 'legal' definitions of marriage versus spiritual...the Catholic church did not recognize divorce at all for quite some time...now, there must be very certain circumstances in which the church will grant an annulment (which means absolutely nothing legally.) So for a Catholic, you can have a legal divorce from your spouse, however if it was not sanctioned by the church (in other words, the church also granted their own 'annulment') then you are still married in the church's eyes and the Catholic church will not allow you to be married again by a priest. The Catholic church seems to have some interesting ways... I remember when my Dad re-married to his Catholic wife, that he had to get my mom to sign something saying their marriage was never "real" (or something like that)... Oh, and I don't really think of "spiritual" marriages and "religious" marriages as being the same thing, but that's just me. I mean, I consider my marriage to be spiritual (as in the "not tangible" definition of the word), but we are not religious... Though I guess to someone who is religious, "spiritual" would have a different meaning than it does to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #53 August 19, 2004 "I think a homosexual couple should be able to have the same rights as a married couple, but to get married in a church, Masque, or other religious temple is an insult to that religion if the religion denounces homosexuality. I agree 100%. I could care less what religions do - what matters is that a gay couple get afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple." What Bill said... I find it interesting that in the US, the very people who're against Gay Marriage, are the same people who want greater self determination... Their self determination! Eg: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ Mike. . Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bazza 0 #54 August 19, 2004 I think a point that is being missed here is that the institution of marriage was born out of religion, most of which denounce homosexuality. It is this sanctity along with the solemn vows and promises to God that people think and feel are being marginalized by allowing gays to marry when the religions do not favour homosexuality. Also, one of the reasons for marriage is for the couple to 'legally' or 'legitimately' procreate the species. That is, the natural biological process between a man and a woman through intercourse. If gays want to live to gether in peaceful, common law harmony there wouldn't be as much of an uproar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #55 August 19, 2004 All this is very true. However, the notion of marriage has evolved alongside human beings. It now has not only a religious definition, but also a civil legal definition, which implies certain legal implications (taxes, inheritance, etc...). And if there are legal implications, the notion of discrimination becomes very important. QuoteAlso, one of the reasons for marriage is for the couple to 'legally' or 'legitimately' procreate the species. That is, the natural biological process between a man and a woman through intercourse I think the human species can procreate just fine without doing it "legally"! I think the only legitimate issue marriage ever solved in the passed was inheritance issues (being property, territories, etc...). "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #56 August 19, 2004 >I think a point that is being missed here is that the institution of >marriage was born out of religion, most of which denounce > homosexuality. It is this sanctity along with the solemn vows and > promises to God that people think and feel are being marginalized > by allowing gays to marry when the religions do not favour > homosexuality. Some religions frown on inter-religious marriages; it would be absurd to forbid them, even if religion X feels demeaned if people of religion X are allowed to marry the heathen whores of religion Y (or even the murderers and thieves of race Z.) I agree that marriage had a religious basis. So did slavery. So did holy wars. That is no reason to keep any of those institutions from changing, especially in a country that has made it clear that we do NOT base our laws on any religion. We look to our constitution and our bill of rights, not our bibles, when we decide what rights to withhold from our citizens. >Also, one of the reasons for marriage is for the couple to 'legally' > or 'legitimately' procreate the species. That is, the natural biological > process between a man and a woman through intercourse. I agree there. However, as someone can conceive children without being married (and married people with children can get divorced) it is a social convention, not a biological one. >If gays want to live to gether in peaceful, common law harmony > there wouldn't be as much of an uproar. And if they could get a civil union that was equivalent to marriage they wouldn't HAVE to make an uproar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
miked10270 0 #53 August 19, 2004 "I think a homosexual couple should be able to have the same rights as a married couple, but to get married in a church, Masque, or other religious temple is an insult to that religion if the religion denounces homosexuality. I agree 100%. I could care less what religions do - what matters is that a gay couple get afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple." What Bill said... I find it interesting that in the US, the very people who're against Gay Marriage, are the same people who want greater self determination... Their self determination! Eg: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ Mike. . Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bazza 0 #54 August 19, 2004 I think a point that is being missed here is that the institution of marriage was born out of religion, most of which denounce homosexuality. It is this sanctity along with the solemn vows and promises to God that people think and feel are being marginalized by allowing gays to marry when the religions do not favour homosexuality. Also, one of the reasons for marriage is for the couple to 'legally' or 'legitimately' procreate the species. That is, the natural biological process between a man and a woman through intercourse. If gays want to live to gether in peaceful, common law harmony there wouldn't be as much of an uproar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #55 August 19, 2004 All this is very true. However, the notion of marriage has evolved alongside human beings. It now has not only a religious definition, but also a civil legal definition, which implies certain legal implications (taxes, inheritance, etc...). And if there are legal implications, the notion of discrimination becomes very important. QuoteAlso, one of the reasons for marriage is for the couple to 'legally' or 'legitimately' procreate the species. That is, the natural biological process between a man and a woman through intercourse I think the human species can procreate just fine without doing it "legally"! I think the only legitimate issue marriage ever solved in the passed was inheritance issues (being property, territories, etc...). "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #56 August 19, 2004 >I think a point that is being missed here is that the institution of >marriage was born out of religion, most of which denounce > homosexuality. It is this sanctity along with the solemn vows and > promises to God that people think and feel are being marginalized > by allowing gays to marry when the religions do not favour > homosexuality. Some religions frown on inter-religious marriages; it would be absurd to forbid them, even if religion X feels demeaned if people of religion X are allowed to marry the heathen whores of religion Y (or even the murderers and thieves of race Z.) I agree that marriage had a religious basis. So did slavery. So did holy wars. That is no reason to keep any of those institutions from changing, especially in a country that has made it clear that we do NOT base our laws on any religion. We look to our constitution and our bill of rights, not our bibles, when we decide what rights to withhold from our citizens. >Also, one of the reasons for marriage is for the couple to 'legally' > or 'legitimately' procreate the species. That is, the natural biological > process between a man and a woman through intercourse. I agree there. However, as someone can conceive children without being married (and married people with children can get divorced) it is a social convention, not a biological one. >If gays want to live to gether in peaceful, common law harmony > there wouldn't be as much of an uproar. And if they could get a civil union that was equivalent to marriage they wouldn't HAVE to make an uproar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
