Should same sex marriage be legal?

[Cooky]

Marriage has always been a contract first.. Seeing it as a sacrament is another dimension.

One that should be respected.

 

[sooda]

One that should be respected.

I agree, but there is NO 3rd party to the contract.

 

[Cooky]

I agree, but there is NO 3rd party to the contract.

We believe God is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It tramples on their liberty in the exact same way that outlawing gay marriage tramples on the liberties of gays.

Does it, though?

What would be the problem with a government saying something like this?

Anyone licensed to be a marriage officiant will have to agree not to discriminate. Your priests/ministers/whatnot won't be forced to be licensed, but if they aren't licensed, then any "marriages" they perform won't have legal weight.

 

[sooda]

We believe God is.

That's the sacrament part.. I take it that you were married in church like we were.

 

[julianalexander745]

Does it, though?

Yes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.

Informative explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, there are extremists who would pursue such a sinister plan... Those progressive extremists would be just as bad as the religious extremists before them though. But for some, revenge is bittersweet.

There's nothing sinister in the idea that rights are vested in individuals.

 

[Cooky]

That's the sacrament part.. I take it that you were married in church like we were.

I'm Catholic, and was married in the Church, yes.

 

[julianalexander745]

Informative explanation.

I'll leave the rest to your own powers of deduction and inquisition.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Does it, though?

What would be the problem with a government saying something like this?

Anyone licensed to be a marriage officiant will have to agree not to discriminate. Your priests/ministers/whatnot won't be forced to be licensed, but if they aren't licensed, then any "marriages" they perform won't have legal weight.

Excellent point! That nicely adds that necessary layer of separation of church and state while allowing churches that don't like it their sacrament (since the legal part usually seems irrelevant to them according to their arguments).

 

[Cooky]

There's nothing sinister in the idea that rights are vested in individuals.

But you can't dictate the faith of a 2,000 year old Church, and it's Holy Sacraments -just like the Aussies tried to get Catholic priests to break the Seal of Confession.

...These are infringements on religious freedom.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I say yes. I am bisexual, and see no reason to say otherwise.

I don't know. I agree with dybmh. Civil unions are a good idea. You know why? They're a good idea, because they promote faithful long term relationships, and also (and perhaps more importantly) can help provide a stable environment for a child. Lots of children are never adopted, but people in a serious relationship might be able to rear a child. Now I don't know much about gay people and gay marriages, so I can't say that any of that is correct. It sounds theoretically like a good idea.

I think though that gay marriage is in for a long term stigma from those who feel that gay relationships are more sinful than heterosexual ones. Therefore in addition to civil marriage, I think gays must adopt an agenda and begin to agitate for awareness and change of public perspective. They should do things like have parades and perhaps have large corporate entities speak out in their favor. Oh, also they should get the media to show healthy homosexual relationships in movies and TV shows to help people process the idea better, and they should point out famous homosexuals in History. Maybe they should do something with Star Trek and Doctor Who? Everybody watches those shows.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'll leave the rest to your own powers of deduction and inquisition.

Which tells me you cannot counter his suggestion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you can't dictate the faith of a 2,000 year old Church, and it's Holy Sacraments -just like the Aussies tried to get Catholic priests to break the Seal of Confession.

...These are infringements on religious freedom.

Who's dictating what now?

Nothing about Apostolic Succession or the sacraments requires that marriages by priests necessarily be recognized by secular governments for tax or divorce purposes. Nothing about religious freedom requires that churches should be able to issue tax receipts for donations as if they're charities.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Guilty as charged
Honestly I don't care whether anyone does or not, it's their life.

Yes, it's their life. And I'm happy to let you, and everyone else, live your life as you see fit. But surely you must have noticed -- there are some several folks who'd prefer to dictate what private, non-harmful life choices others should make. Only for "the best reasons," of course.

 

[Cooky]

Who's dictating what now?

Nothing about Apostolic Succession or the sacraments requires that marriages by priests necessarily be recognized by secular governments for tax or divorce purposes. Nothing about religious freedom requires that churches should be able to issue tax receipts for donations as if they're charities.

I don't understand why:

1. Anyone would think Churches should be forced to marry same sex couples.
2. Why anyone would think Churches should be stripped from their rights to legally marry if they dont.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Would it, though?

A church that operated as an anonymous collection of individuals wouldn't be on the government's radar at all. They'd be free to "marry" people or not according to the dictates of their religion without the government saying anything.

They wouldn't be able to necessarily solemnize marriages that would have legal recognition, but if that recognition isn't what matters to them, then no problem. Or they could get a second ceremony done at City Hall for legal purposes.

... so religious freedom of individuals can be maintained regardless of what requirements we put on corporatized religious institutions.

Exactly so! As I said earlier, there are religious organizations that are happy to solemnize the marriage of two people of the same sex. At the same time, there are governments that are happy to acknowledge the "marital rights" of same-sex couples, without caring whether or not some church or other agrees.

For myself, I grew up long ago when marriage was never going to be a possibility for me, so it never entered my consciousness as a thing to strive for. My partner and I are recognized (legally) by the Canadian government as spouses, and thus we are entitled to all the rights (and responsibilities) of all other Canadian spouses. But we never married -- we live in a "common-law" arrangement, which in Canada is fully equivalent to marriage.

 

[BSM1]

I favor gays marrying each other.
If we endure it, then so should they.

Exactly! What's good for the goose...oops...wrong choice of words, maybe?

 

[sooda]

Does it, though?

What would be the problem with a government saying something like this?

Anyone licensed to be a marriage officiant will have to agree not to discriminate. Your priests/ministers/whatnot won't be forced to be licensed, but if they aren't licensed, then any "marriages" they perform won't have legal weight.

Who's dictating what now?

Nothing about Apostolic Succession or the sacraments requires that marriages by priests necessarily be recognized by secular governments for tax or divorce purposes. Nothing about religious freedom requires that churches should be able to issue tax receipts for donations as if they're charities.

The marriage contract is between the 2 parties serves as a registry of the K... It would come into play at the rights upon the death of one of the parties.. or if they had a dispute over breaking the agreement.