1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Should GAYS be allowed to MARRY?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by NTKB, Dec 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DarkBls

    DarkBls Inf Ex-admin

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2000
    Messages:
    4,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not only gays use the PACS. There are heterosexual people who prefer PACS rather than the marriage, or use it before doing a real marriage (because a wedding party is expensive).
     
  2. jaunty

    jaunty If you disagree with me, you're wrong.

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did I not say the choice regarding the issue of the marriage should be left up to the head of whichever church it is that people want to marry them? I'm pretty sure I did. All I argued for was legal recognition for gay couples, equal to that which hetrosexual couples receive. This simply gives them some room to move under law when it comes to superannuation, wills and the like. It has nothing to do with marriage.

    I'll say it again just so you understand. Marriage is a creation of the churches, and it's a stupid idea, but it's THEIR stupid idea, and churches are, in essence, a private organisation just like the boy scouts or the Sex Kitten Fetish Den, and that means they're free to choose who to accept and reject. If they want to reject gays from their little jesuslove club, then that's their perogative.

    Nobody has a right to reject anybody from society, though, with the exception of criminals, as defined by the written law of man, and not under the written law of the pretend man in the clouds. When it comes down to it, all opposition to homosexuality related issues is a religious or moral opposition. "I don't agree with your lifestyle" is not an acceptable excuse to alienate and villify somebody, let alone to deny them fair and equal treatment in any society that wants to call itself civilised.

    So here it is, in huge massive writing, just in case you missed it a second time:

    THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. THE CHURCH HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHO THEY WED AND THEY'VE MADE IT. FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY DEMANDS THAT GAY COUPLES BE GIVEN EQUAL LEGAL TREATMENT TO HETROSEXUAL COUPLES IN SOCIETY BASED ON LAW AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CHURCH CHOOSES TO RECOGNISE OR ACCEPT. WHAT THE CHURCH DOES IS UP TO THE CHURCH. THE LAW AND THE BIBLE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER, EXCEPT IN AMERICA BECAUSE YOU'RE A PACK OF PURITANICAL KOOKS.

    I hope that clarifies my position. You may now recommence making mountains out of molehills, and screeching "KULTURKAMPF!!" at every opportunity.

    I've only got one question; Do you read WorldNetDaily?

    EDIT: Also, the paperwork you do is what grants you the legal rights of a married couple. You can choose not to do the paperwork and to not pay the fee, and your marriage would still be recnognised in the religious sense, but you would not be entitled to the legal benefits of marriage. Are we beginning to see the difference here?
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2003
  3. Rostam

    Rostam PSN: Rostam_

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Freon I actually don't mind brothers and sisters marrying, it's not my problem and not my choice.
     
  4. anaemic

    anaemic she touch your penis?

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    3,124
    Likes Received:
    0
    what a gay conversation
     
  5. Hadmar

    Hadmar Queen Bitch of the Universe

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,474
    Likes Received:
    30
    To make it a bit more clear: when I say marriage I mean the legal aspects, not the church which is probably couse I don't belife in god and don't have the church very high on my priority list in contrast to the believers who have the church in mind first and that obviously coused some missunderstandings here. Be it church or state, both is called marriage and I don't see why there should be a different name for homosexual couples. You can't force the church to change as it's, as jaunty said, a private organisation and it's noones elses bussines to change the churchs rules but that's totaly seperate from the legal binding of a marriage in the registry office.
     
  6. melagne

    melagne blah

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    0
  7. chuckus

    chuckus Can't stop the bum rush.

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have churches here in Canada that have married Gay couples. Not ALL churches have made that choice. I think gays have a right to be married but if they're church won't recognize their marriage and refuses to marry them, I think they should get their papers from the US governement, pack and come to Canada for a weekend, get hitched in the eyes of God and go back home!!!
     
  8. TheWhaleShark

    TheWhaleShark This world is spinning around me

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    To repeat what has been said many times already:

    You cannot, and should not, force any pastor of a religious denomination to marry a gay couple, as they are merely acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, and you can't force someone to act in a certain way.

    BUT, gay couples should be recognized in the same way that heterosexual couples are. It only makes sense.
     
  9. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jaunty is one of those funny little people who gets pissed off when people agree with him :rolleyes:

    Go re-read my posts and you'll find that we're pretty much on the same page. My point is that if you expand the legal definition of "marriage" to include gays then those who perform marriages and wish to not perform gay marriages will be sued ... the goals of those pushing for gay marriage laws is more then just allowing gays to marry, it is to destroy traditional Christian institutions.

    The best solution is to eleminate the government as a player completely ... then marriage just becomes a matter of contracts between adults, and the government can't decide which contracts are more acceptable then others.

    And for the record, no I don't read World Net Daily. I prefer Reason and Free Republic.
     
  10. Thrash123

    Thrash123 Obey Leash Laws

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 1999
    Messages:
    4,777
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is utterly amazing. I actually agree with Jaunty on something.
     
  11. jaeg

    jaeg PopeyeTurbo

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2000
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those of you who believe that churches will somehow be forced to marry gay people by the government have been watching Fox News too much. The churches can believe whatever the hell they want, whenever they want and that includes whether gay people can marry or not marry.

    I believe that if a state wants to recognize relationships between gay couples for the sake of taxes, insurance, inheritances and other legal reasons then that perfectly fine. We should seek to protect equal oppourtunity for all citizens no matter what their sexual behavior is.

    However I don't think there's any reason for the fedral government to get involved or have any policy whatsoever on this issue. This should be one purely for the states. And that idea about the federal Constituition amendment banning gay civil unions is utter crap. Stuff like that shouldn't get anywhere near such a document.
     
  12. SaraP

    SaraP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong. Every gay-rights law that's been proposed simply adds gays to the list of federal/state protected minorities, making it illegal to discriminate against them in any way -- including a church refusing to marry them, if that church DOES marry normal heterosexual couples.
     
  13. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Churches in America have already been successfully sued for not hiring gays as secretaries and child care workers ... if you think they won't sue over this then you need to dig your head out of the sand.
     
  14. SaraP

    SaraP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. They’ve already been sued for employment and lost some, won some; with a gay marriage law or worse yet a general gay-rights law, they’d lose every discrimination suit and be forced to hire and marry gays regardless of doctrinal opposition to homosexuality.
     
  15. NTKB

    NTKB Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all MAXMESA, get my friggin name right if you want me to take your posts seriously ok? ;)

    Saying that marriage was around as in its current form before it was a religeous institution is an opinion. Mine is founded in written history, yours is founded on presumptions.

    Marriage in its present form was instituted by religeous people for a certain reason. To bond man and WOman in holy matrimony in Gods eyes. More and more young people today are not even getting married cause they say its "just a piece of paper." This in a way shows that since the youth are straying more and more away from there religeous beliefs (at least here in the USA) they dont feel compelled to get married anymore. Ask my sister...

    A similar example would be this. What if christians took Ramadan and implemented it into there religeon? Muslims im sure would be offended. Or if muslims took the mass and added it to theres? True believers would be offended by this use of there sacred right in there eyes.

    Now turn this around, what if the government started holding mass, and at the same time observing ramadan while burning incense to Buddha? Wouldnt that offend someone?

    By creating there own ceremonys and rights they could recieve from the secular goverment the same rights and benefits as married people and not offend anyone. This has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with respecting others beliefs. You can sit here and scream how marriage was around before religeon but 500 million to one billion people are not gonna hear that.

    In the end even if you ARE right it matters not. The beliefs of others that was here first should be respected. In turn we respect your beliefs and practices. You wanna be gay and have sexual relations with the same sex? Go right ahead. Its your life. Ill be cool with you and be your friend I dont care. I am not going to do anything with you ever cause im straight so dont try but other than that your jsut another guy.

    I wish if any gay members of this community (are there any?) could speak out here. I know you are probobly liberal minded but perhaps you can see my point of view and back me up? Peace.
     
  16. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's probably too complicated for anyone to get it right. ;)
    (j/k) *wink* :rolleyes:


    woups, i did it. The infamous smilie
     
  17. _Zd_Phoenix_

    _Zd_Phoenix_ Queen of BuFdom

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    5,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm gay, and I sort of agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I want equal rights, but I don't see why it should be done though a religious institution that sees being gay as a sin.

    However I agree about the atheist point as well...
     
  18. jaunty

    jaunty If you disagree with me, you're wrong.

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm only pissed off because you went into a WND-esque "THIS IS A WAR ON OUR CULTURE!!!!!1" rant. So like I said, just go back to making mountains out of molehills, and fight that kulturkampf for the good of WASPs everywhere. It's not a jihad though. Those are for the brown people to fight ;)
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2003
  19. jaeg_dos

    jaeg_dos New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's important to make the distinction between "marriage" in the eyes of the government and religious marriage. Most churches are at least somewhat discretionary in who they will marry. There are still many that won't marry inter-racial couples and even more that won't marry peoples of different faiths. I'm Catholic and I know that the church's doctrine here is quite extensive. We may not agree with it but we sure as hell respect their right to such a philosophy. Yet all of these churches still are granted the right by the state to pronouce people married (as opposed to a judge doing it) as a courtesy to respect a well-accepted human instituition. The point is that we aren't talking about the religious aspect of marriage because marriage in the eyes of the government is completely "faith-blind". This is why marriage can occur in church and but divorce always takes places in court.

    SaraP must live in a place where the government regulates religious pratices. Fortunately for those of us in the US, we have a legal system that has no jurisdiction whatsoever over churches in their religious capacity. However most state legal systems do refuse marriage licences to same-sex couples and this is, in my opinion, counter-productive.

    The government grants rights to couples deemed married because it has an interest in perpetuating monogomy. Put bluntly, couples raise children much better and partners involved in long-term relationships are more productive citizens. They are healthier, less criminal, more stable and happier. I fail to comprehend how denying people who happen to be homosexual the right to enjoy the instituite of marriage benefits anyone except religious zealots.

    If every church from A to Z refuses to marry gay couples and hangs up a big sign that says "WE HATE HOMOS" then I will support their right to do so 100 percent. But we should expect better of a government bound by law and based on rationality.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2003
  20. SaraP

    SaraP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, we have a legal system that has full jurisdiction over churches in their employment capacity and has in the past abused that jurisdiction by forcing churches to hire gays despite doctrinal objections to doing so.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2003
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page