Homosexual love

[Diuretic]

Christianity has nothing to do with it. I'm an atheist, and I think the government needs to stay the fuck out of marriage completely. What gives the government the right to be involved at all?

It's a legal matter, ergo government is involved.

It's only a legal matter because the government told you it was.
The state has no business sanctioning marriage, period.

The problem is that the state holds the reins. Legislators are in a position of power even in a liberal democracy. I don't mean the individuals occupying the roles on a temporary basis, I mean the offices themselves. You might think that the state has no business in sanctioning marriage but the fact is that it feels it does. That idea goes back to ancient Rome and no doubt before the Roman Republic. Essentially marriage is the official recognition of a relationship and an awarding of status to the issue of that relationship. Short of pure anarchism that's not going to change any time soon.

 

[alan1]

The only people that care what gays get up to are closet homos, that's it, that's all.

Generalize much?

 

[Diuretic]

Nah Cody, you just have to accept that there are plenty of people who have this view that sex has to be between a married male and female (married to each other that is). They're the ones doing the whining. It's really not projection. Nor is it envy. It's just good old-fashioned bigotry (with some seriously fucked up issues beneath the surface - that's my generalisation).

 

[alan1]

It's a legal matter, ergo government is involved.

It's only a legal matter because the government told you it was.
The state has no business sanctioning marriage, period.

The problem is that the state holds the reins. Legislators are in a position of power even in a liberal democracy. I don't mean the individuals occupying the roles on a temporary basis, I mean the offices themselves. You might think that the state has no business in sanctioning marriage but the fact is that it feels it does. That idea goes back to ancient Rome and no doubt before the Roman Republic. Essentially marriage is the official recognition of a relationship and an awarding of status to the issue of that relationship. Short of pure anarchism that's not going to change any time soon.

See my other post about the original point of sanctioning marriage.
Just because the state feels like it belongs in the marriage business doesn't make the state right. Removing that power from the state doesn't require anarchy, it requires people to tell the state to get the fuck out of their personal lives.

 

[alan1]

The only people that care what gays get up to are closet homos, that's it, that's all.

Generalize much?

ok then, what other reason do people obsess with what other people they don't even know get up to in the bedroom? It means that they constantly have to think about the act of packing fudge.
You know how the saying goes, those who talk about getting the most are always the ones getting the least. Same deal here. Those who protest about it the loudest are the ones who think about it the most.

You are still generalizing.
Why do you think you need a government entity to acknowledge something like marriage?
Why is the government involved at all?

 

[Diuretic]

It's only a legal matter because the government told you it was.
The state has no business sanctioning marriage, period.

The problem is that the state holds the reins. Legislators are in a position of power even in a liberal democracy. I don't mean the individuals occupying the roles on a temporary basis, I mean the offices themselves. You might think that the state has no business in sanctioning marriage but the fact is that it feels it does. That idea goes back to ancient Rome and no doubt before the Roman Republic. Essentially marriage is the official recognition of a relationship and an awarding of status to the issue of that relationship. Short of pure anarchism that's not going to change any time soon.

See my other post about the original point of sanctioning marriage.
Just because the state feels like it belongs in the marriage business doesn't make the state right. Removing that power from the state doesn't require anarchy, it requires people to tell the state to get the fuck out of their personal lives.

Point taken but given that marriage is a legal concept I don't think the state will walk away from it. And nor should it. The whole idea of marriage is to give legitimacy to a union. The problem is that the union is - for the purposes of this discussion - un-necessarily restrictive. It's not so much the state butting out as the state needing to recognise that the "traditional" model may not be the sole definition of marriage any longer.

 

[California Girl]

Let them do whatever. I don't really care anymore as long as they're not having Islamic marriage ceremonies.

Why just Islamic? It's okay for all other faiths to be forced to perform them, except yours? Charming, I must say.

See, now I have to dismiss you as an idiot.

The original idea of marriage was a religious one, not a state sanctioned one. If his religion doesn't want to sanction a marriage, that is up to his religion, not the state.

Which is what I am saying - a contractual legal marriage, fine. Regilious ceremony? Only at the discretion of the faith concerned..... Although, unlike some on here who seek to protect only their own faith, I seek to protect all faiths.

 

[eagleseven]

The only people that care what gays get up to are closet homos, that's it, that's all.

Or maybe they have family members who want to get married, and they care for their family?

Just sayin...

 

[eagleseven]

E7, I love you but supporting traditional marriage does not mean we're anti-gay, honey. And it doesn't mean we're all repressed gays either. Everyone marches to their own drum, my very good friend.

Hehe...I honestly think we should separate church and state, ie leaving the legal paperwork to the state (civil unions), and leaving marriage to the Churches (ritual ceremony).

 

[California Girl]

Let them do whatever. I don't really care anymore as long as they're not having Islamic marriage ceremonies.

Why just Islamic? It's okay for all other faiths to be forced to perform them, except yours?

I don't care about marriage's sanctioned by other faiths.

But there will NEVER be a homo marriage performed at a Mosque

This sums up why you should care about other faiths.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

 

[California Girl]

A generation or two from now, people will look back and wonder why we denied the civil rights of homosexuals just like we look back 40 years ago and wonder why we denied the civil rights of blacks. Today will be looked at as a prejudiced time in the future because people are fighting against gay rights.

I support everyone's rights. I don't view gays as any more or less deserving than anyone else. As long as their rights do not interfere with my rights, I'm good.

 

[eagleseven]

The only people that care what gays get up to are closet homos, that's it, that's all.

Or maybe they have family members who want to get married, they care for their family?

Just sayin...

wtf does that have to do with what people you don't even know get up to?

I'm the one with the hangover...try making sense.

 

[alan1]

The problem is that the state holds the reins. Legislators are in a position of power even in a liberal democracy. I don't mean the individuals occupying the roles on a temporary basis, I mean the offices themselves. You might think that the state has no business in sanctioning marriage but the fact is that it feels it does. That idea goes back to ancient Rome and no doubt before the Roman Republic. Essentially marriage is the official recognition of a relationship and an awarding of status to the issue of that relationship. Short of pure anarchism that's not going to change any time soon.

See my other post about the original point of sanctioning marriage.
Just because the state feels like it belongs in the marriage business doesn't make the state right. Removing that power from the state doesn't require anarchy, it requires people to tell the state to get the fuck out of their personal lives.

Point taken but given that marriage is a legal concept I don't think the state will walk away from it. And nor should it. The whole idea of marriage is to give legitimacy to a union. The problem is that the union is - for the purposes of this discussion - un-necessarily restrictive. It's not so much the state butting out as the state needing to recognise that the "traditional" model may not be the sole definition of marriage any longer.

Just because it is a contract doesn't mean the state needs to sanction it. I can enter into lots of contracts without the state sanctioning them. For example, I have a neighbor that mows my yard. I pay him $25 for that. It is a verbal contract that him and I have agreed to. the state didn't sanction it, has nothing to do with it and cannot tell either of us that we can or cannot do it. It is a legal contract for all intents and purposes. If I pay him $25 and he doesn't mow my yard, I can legally sue him. On the other side, if he mows my yard and I don't pay him, he can sue me. It doesn't require the state to acknowledge it or sanction it. We have court systems for contract violation, we don't need the state to sign off on every contract.

 

[Big Black Dog]

This is a pretty queer post...

 

[eagleseven]

This is a pretty queer post...

Very observant!

 

[alan1]

Why just Islamic? It's okay for all other faiths to be forced to perform them, except yours? Charming, I must say.

See, now I have to dismiss you as an idiot.

The original idea of marriage was a religious one, not a state sanctioned one. If his religion doesn't want to sanction a marriage, that is up to his religion, not the state.

Which is what I am saying - a contractual legal marriage, fine. Regilious ceremony? Only at the discretion of the faith concerned..... Although, unlike some on here who seek to protect only their own faith, I seek to protect all faiths.

Actually, I don't think you do want to protect all faiths. From your post, to me, it sounded more like you want to force your standards on their faith, and you want the government to help you do that. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
My point is that the state has no right to be involved.

 

[eagleseven]

Actually, I don't think you do want to protect all faiths. From your post, to me, it sounded more like you want to force your standards on their faith, and you want the government to help you do that. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
My point is that the state has no right to be involved.

Are you suggesting that a Marriage ceremony should be as legally binding as, say, a Baptism?

Hmm...

 

[Toro]

A generation or two from now, people will look back and wonder why we denied the civil rights of homosexuals just like we look back 40 years ago and wonder why we denied the civil rights of blacks. Today will be looked at as a prejudiced time in the future because people are fighting against gay rights.

I support everyone's rights. I don't view gays as any more or less deserving than anyone else. As long as their rights do not interfere with my rights, I'm good.

They don't.

If gays want to get married, how does that interfere with your rights? Are you less likely to get married? Are they denying you something?

 

[alan1]

Actually, I don't think you do want to protect all faiths. From your post, to me, it sounded more like you want to force your standards on their faith, and you want the government to help you do that. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
My point is that the state has no right to be involved.

Are you suggesting that a Marriage ceremony should be as legally binding as, say, a Baptism?

Hmm...

The state has no involvement in baptism, why should it be involved in marriage?

 

[alan1]

A generation or two from now, people will look back and wonder why we denied the civil rights of homosexuals just like we look back 40 years ago and wonder why we denied the civil rights of blacks. Today will be looked at as a prejudiced time in the future because people are fighting against gay rights.

I support everyone's rights. I don't view gays as any more or less deserving than anyone else. As long as their rights do not interfere with my rights, I'm good.

As long as you give the government a role in marriage, then rights are being violated. Why does one need a state issued marriage license to get married?