|
Post by Azuna the Screaming Gopher on Mar 1, 2009 13:51:09 GMT -5
I hope I didn't come across as insisting at all God-worshipers hate gays, because I'm a Christian and I totally support them. I will say that the couples being able to sue parishes is wrong though. I mean, it WAS illegal. Do they mean that if they continue to refuse to marry them? yeah, I'm a God-worshiper and I don't hate gays. I mean, I support everything from gay adoption to civil unions, but not marriages. Suing Parishes isn't right either. I mean, really, who would sue a church?
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Mar 1, 2009 18:52:19 GMT -5
Me. Why do you think it's so wron?g.
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Mar 1, 2009 19:09:06 GMT -5
Because what the pro-gay rights people are fighting for them to be able to get married - which, technically, is a legal document, signed by the state - not as how the opposition believe to be a religious ceremony. To allow them to sue the church is not only breaking the separation of church and state, but it's defeating the entire point we've set forth to make.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Mar 1, 2009 20:18:55 GMT -5
^First of all, I think that the court would probably throw such a case out for lack of legal grounds. Secondly, Ive argued from the start that it is an issue of definitions. As far as people of faith are concerned, marriage is a religious ceremony. Since they are essentially talking about 2 separate things, there is no real conflict.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Mar 2, 2009 0:45:10 GMT -5
I know what they're fighting for. Azuna simply asked "who would sue a church", I would if I felt it was right. She gave me the impression that she meant for any reason.
It's not breaking the seperation of church and state to sue a church. Not technically atleast""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Technically anything's that not a law is immune to seperation of church and state if I'm reading correctly. I don't know what the legal text on it is so I could be wrong, but it sounds like discrimination to me. fair enough.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Mar 2, 2009 4:51:04 GMT -5
It's not breaking the seperation of church and state to sue a church. Not technically atleast""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Technically anything's that not a law is immune to seperation of church and state if I'm reading correctly. I don't know what the legal text on it is so I could be wrong, but it sounds like discrimination to me. Sure its discrimination. When you prefer chocolate over vanilla, thats discrimination too. And its perfectly legal. As long as what you do isnt against the law (whether civil law or criminal law) you shouldnt have any case to answer for in a court of law. When it comes to matters of faith, any law (civil or criminal) or court ruling purporting to interfer with or dictate the course of a religious ceremony would probably run foul of the First Amendment which should be read together with the Supremacy Clause in the second para of Article IV of the Federal Constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." It would be senseless if a judge (by his rulings) could for all intents and purposes create a law that even congress is not permitted to make.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Mar 2, 2009 5:07:23 GMT -5
Notice I said "the legal text on it", I know that's discrimination. When we're talking about law and what is already illegal nothing matters except the legal text........judging by the way you're saying that I'll assume the church only handles the ceremony and the like. Sorry, I somehow had the impression they handled some of the legal paperwork, which if that were true would be a service, making it similar to not letting gay people get a massage at a....wherever people get massages. Before I was just reffering to them not throwing the case out just for being against a church if that clears anything up.
Also, you really did back me into a corner that I can't get out of....you win...although it is for the same reason you'd win when saying the laws that stop people from yelling "bomb!" on a plane are against freedom of speech
|
|
|
Post by Consonant*** on Mar 10, 2009 17:00:42 GMT -5
I think if you're fighting for legalized gay marriage and you won't accept the same exact benefits under a different name, you're just fighting to say you won.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Mar 11, 2009 4:03:33 GMT -5
Ive argued from the start that it is an issue of definitions. As far as people of faith are concerned, marriage is a religious ceremony. Since they are essentially talking about 2 separate things, there is no real conflict. The conflict comes from subtext meanings and discrimination. If people could really advocate "equal but separate" naming, then there must be a reason why some are so fervent about it. I mean, if it's really not a big deal that other people have the same rights, then why is there a reason to fight for naming? To avoid confusion? I doubt it; I'm of the opinion that it's to imply superiority of one over the other. You can't say chocolate is better than Vanilla and expect that to be the in law, yet still not be able to distinguish the two. The conflict derives from people perpetuating homosexual relationships in a negative light, whether discretely or overtly. The conflict may seem minimal because no one is actively being harmed, but as the idea continues to fester, there's no real boundary to say that Homosexual couples should not be able to raise children - which occurred in another State and passed. I think if you're fighting for legalized gay marriage and you won't accept the same exact benefits under a different name, you're just fighting to say you won. Like I said, there seems to be a psychological correlation of relationship supremacy and these propositions continuing. And actually, for some people, it means a big deal; not only do the gay people who face discrimination get to be looked at as more than a subhuman degenerate, but they also will be able to shared name of matrimony and full legal protection that their rights are guaranteed. And conversely, the same could be said about people who are opposed to legalizing gay marriages: if they won't accept that Marriage can be another name for a loving and committed union that does not, in any way, affect their own marriage, then they're fighting say that they've won.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Mar 11, 2009 5:28:28 GMT -5
Ive argued from the start that it is an issue of definitions. As far as people of faith are concerned, marriage is a religious ceremony. Since they are essentially talking about 2 separate things, there is no real conflict. The conflict comes from subtext meanings and discrimination. If people could really advocate "equal but separate" naming, then there must be a reason why some are so fervent about it. I mean, if it's really not a big deal that other people have the same rights, then why is there a reason to fight for naming? To avoid confusion? I doubt it; I'm of the opinion that it's to imply superiority of one over the other. You can't say chocolate is better than Vanilla and expect that to be the in law, yet still not be able to distinguish the two. The conflict derives from people perpetuating homosexual relationships in a negative light, whether discretely or overtly. The conflict may seem minimal because no one is actively being harmed, but as the idea continues to fester, there's no real boundary to say that Homosexual couples should not be able to raise children - which occurred in another State and passed. I could just as well argue that the muslim prohibition on the consumtion of pork or alcohol perpetuates the discrimination of those two fine products. As far as christians are concerned, marriage is a distinctly religious ceremony because it is viewed to entail a vow made before God. In respect of this definition of marriage, the State has no authority to solemnise, acknowledge or legislate whatsoever and is in fact constitutionally prohibited from doing so for the reasons mentioned above. Arguably, all the State can recognise are legal civil unions regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. Of course, if the definition of marriage simply means the unions recognised by the State, any number of things can be recognised. I do appreciate the broader issues that you have raised in respect of raising children and the like but I would much prefer that those points be raised and passed by majority ballot rather than a legal techincality in a court of law. What does it matter if the supreme court of the state will affirm and recognise your rights when your very own neighbours wont? We need to change peoples minds on the ground and that will take long hard and painful work. There are no quick and easy fixes.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Mar 11, 2009 12:50:31 GMT -5
I could just as well argue that the muslim prohibition on the consumtion of pork or alcohol perpetuates the discrimination of those two fine products. As far as christians are concerned, marriage is a distinctly religious ceremony because it is viewed to entail a vow made before God. In respect of this definition of marriage, the State has no authority to solemnise, acknowledge or legislate whatsoever and is in fact constitutionally prohibited from doing so for the reasons mentioned above. Arguably, all the State can recognise are legal civil unions regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. Of course, if the definition of marriage simply means the unions recognised by the State, any number of things can be recognised. Then by that same standard, Marriage should not be a legal term. Rather, Civil Unions should become the umbrella term for all legal forms of unions between partners who wish for certain conjugal rights. The fact that Marriage is still a legal term and considered for a specific kind of couple, shows that there exists discrimination. As for the Muslim analogy, I'm not seeing the point behind this; if you're trying to say that people of Islamic faith are opposed to alcohol and pork, does that give them any right to prohibit everyone else from imbibing? The reasoning here is that their choice is simply their choice, and they are not allowed to enforce this on any other person of any faiths (or even their own). Sure, they can admonish others, but are they going to take legal action to ensure the total elimination of Pork and alcohol from the whole state? I do appreciate the broader issues that you have raised in respect of raising children and the like but I would much prefer that those points be raised and passed by majority ballot rather than a legal techincality in a court of law. What does it matter if the supreme court of the state will affirm and recognise your rights when your very own neighbours wont? We need to change peoples minds on the ground and that will take long hard and painful work. There are no quick and easy fixes. I agree that Civil Rights is more effectively enforced when people are in agreement with the ideals; however, if a gay couple who raise a child will still be protected by Legal rights when they are allowed to keep the child, regardless of the Neighbor's/Public's opinion. If the Neighbor or Public were to take some form of action against the couple with their child, they are still assured the benefits of protection by the law. If these people can't raise children, why allow them to live or contribute to society? If they aren't allowed to raise a child, not only does that limit rights, but it also perpetuates the idea that these people are incapable of being integrated onto society. Before people learn that the idea of homosexual marriage or adoption is right, they need to know that actions based on their opinions against these people are against the law. And what if the law was passed where it did not exist before? Are parents really going to lose their children/other rights because of the tyranny of the majority? (Though it's becoming less of a majority and more of a plurality) Edit: Edited out my redundancy errors and general writing flaws.
|
|
Orangey
Painted Katara
Posts: 5,587
|
Post by Orangey on Mar 11, 2009 15:59:17 GMT -5
Um, pork and alcohol are not human beings. (just FYI)
I don't get why some people (most of whom are Christian) are so frightened over the legal definition of marriage being changed. Seriously, marriage has already changed so much over the course of history, but some people act like it has always been some super-special constant and it's their God-given right to decide who can and cannot marry.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Mar 11, 2009 18:17:16 GMT -5
Just an indirect notice to everyone: I changed the title because it was a CT-thread as well as pointing out that rules are to be obeyed. We've had three threads trashed over this issue, and by the fourth time I'm sure we can keep this a healthy conversation as it's been going.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Mar 11, 2009 18:25:21 GMT -5
Um, pork and alcohol are not human beings. (just FYI) I don't get why some people (most of whom are Christian) are so frightened over the legal definition of marriage being changed. Seriously, marriage has already changed so much over the course of history, but some people act like it has always been some super-special constant and it's their God-given right to decide who can and cannot marry. uhm, marriage is not a human being either(ditto). The whole point of my argument was that it is a matter of definitions. The example is given because pork will never be "allowed" as far as jews and muslims are respectively concerned. When the State "allows" its consumption, its on a different level. The fact that there is much truth in what you say about what is commonly accepted as marriage brings about the strong probability that while most of the people who supported proposition 8 seem to be pushing the religion card, thats not th real reason they are against it. Horyo has a more telling point about the children issue. In a lot of the websites pushing proposition 8 that I saw, they went on about how different values were forced on their children by the state and inteference of the state into how they raise and teach their own children . I have always felt that this misconception should be addressed directly and that attacking the religions or values directly was counter-productive. Horyo, I am not in favour of proposition 8. I did say in my post that "Arguably, all the State can recognise are legal civil unions regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. " Will get back to you in more detail later.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Mar 11, 2009 18:55:24 GMT -5
I realize that, heh. I was just responding to your points with what I think and what I consider to be unfair. I'm in agreement that Civil Unions are the way to go, but if really isn't the Government's place to uphold the belief that Marriage is between a man and a woman; that really boils down to the Church or Couple.
|
|