63 replies to this topic

[Hasina]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

I'll lay my cards on the table here. I AM AGAINST MARRIAGE.

Now, why would i be in support of gay people doing something I'm against anyway?

I don't believe in a god that cares about everyone personally. I don't want to discriminate against homosexuals. All the gay marriage debate will do is cement religious people AGAINST homosexuals and created issues where there didn't need to be any.

If anything, my solution of civil unions (where there is a ceremony, but it doesn't have to be religious) will stop conflict not incite it.

I do not hold one human right over the others as you appear to be doing, as i hold them all in the same regard.

I'm not holding anyone's rights over anyone else's, I'm holding the fact that the religious people feel that their institution will be DESTROYED by gay marriage. My counter point is also, trying to stop gays from marrying will cement many gays AGAINST religious folks. A civil union is a solution but some gays are also religious, they don't feel that God hates them for loving the same gender. Why do the discriminated against have to give ground? Because the religious have a 'history' of having marriage? Man, the South should've fought harder for slavery, all that history, gone! I'm also not belittling slavery or the civil rights struggle that blacks had to go through, but I do see similarities between their civil rights struggle and gays civil rights struggle.

And that's fine and dandy, you're against marriage, wonderful to know that, but I don't see what that really has to do with religious folks wanting their version of marriage protected by laws, forbidding gays from using that word, or their views being cemented against each other because of the disagreement.

[Hasina]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

I can't find any stats but i am almost certain that the vast majority of weddings are performed by a member of a religious organization (90-95% estimate). I am happy to change my opinion if you can enlighten me.

Priests performing marriages have to say 'The power vested in me by the state of _____', they get the ability to give out marriage contracts by that state. I'm unaware of how it's done in other countries though, I will admit.

Edited by Hasina, 10 October 2012 - 02:00 AM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

Priests performing marriages have to say 'The power vested in me by the state of _____', they get the ability to give out marriage contracts by that state. I'm unaware of how it's done in other countries though, I will admit.

But without his or her signature the marriage is invalid

[Hasina]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

But without his or her signature the marriage is invalid

You can get a judge to sign it.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

I'm not holding anyone's rights over anyone else's, I'm holding the fact that the religious people feel that their institution will be DESTROYED by gay marriage. My counter point is also, trying to stop gays from marrying will cement many gays AGAINST religious folks. A civil union is a solution but some gays are also religious, they don't feel that God hates them for loving the same gender. Why do the discriminated against have to give ground? Because the religious have a 'history' of having marriage? Man, the South should've fought harder for slavery, all that history, gone! I'm also not belittling slavery or the civil rights struggle that blacks had to go through, but I do see similarities between their civil rights struggle and gays civil rights struggle.

And that's fine and dandy, you're against marriage, wonderful to know that, but I don't see what that really has to do with religious folks wanting their version of marriage protected by laws, forbidding gays from using that word, or their views being cemented against each other because of the disagreement.

Freedom of religion is a right and rights are not something you can just throw away. Why do you care if this cements people against religion? I don't. It's their own choice as they have that right. It should (as does) reflect poorly on them.

If i was gay, and wanted to be part of a religion i would find a church that accepted me, not change all churches.

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

You can get a judge to sign it.

If he conducted the ceremony (or at least witnessed it) and how often does that happen?

[Hasina]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

Freedom of religion is a right and rights are not something you can just throw away. Why do you care if this cements people against religion? I don't. It's their own choice as they have that right. It should (as does) reflect poorly on them.

If i was gay, and wanted to be part of a religion i would find a church that accepted me, not change all churches.


If he conducted the ceremony (or at least witnessed it) and how often does that happen?

Sure, fine, I suppose we can agree to disagree, heck, the States allow the KKK to exist, so why not religions that hate gays?

And my uncle, being a judge, has done so actually on many occasions.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Sure, fine, I suppose we can agree to disagree, heck, the States allow the KKK to exist, so why not religions that hate gays?

And my uncle, being a judge, has done so actually on many occasions.

Being possible 1% of all weddings in that area?

I don't see the point in changing one right to protect another. I guess we can agree to disagree

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 10 October 2012 - 02:08 AM.

[Hasina]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

Being possible 1% of all weddings in that area?

I don't see the point in changing one right to protect another. I guess we can agree to disagree

The right to vote has changed many times, at least in the States it has:
Source: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Actof 1965.[1] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

• Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
  
• "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
  
• "On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
  
• In Washington, D.C., presidential elections after 164 year suspension by U.S. Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961)
  
• (For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)

(For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))

• "Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).

[Imaginarynumber1]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

I can't find any stats but i am almost certain that the vast majority of weddings are performed by a member of a religious organization (90-95% estimate). I am happy to change my opinion if you can enlighten me.

You still need a marriage certificate issued by the state. Marriage is a legal contract. Any religious ceremony has nothing to do with the legalities of a marriage.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Imaginarynumber1, on 10 October 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

You still need a marriage certificate issued by the state. Marriage is a legal contract. Any religious ceremony has nothing to do with the legalities of a marriage.

Except that you need the priest/rabbi (etc) to sign a statement that they performed the ceremony. I find it odd that you can't equate marriage and religion throughout the last 1,000 years. Heck, the pope wouldn't allow King Henry VIII to divorce and remarry and he was head of state (goes without saying)

[shadowhive]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

Except that you need the priest/rabbi (etc) to sign a statement that they performed the ceremony. I find it odd that you can't equate marriage and religion throughout the last 1,000 years. Heck, the pope wouldn't allow King Henry VIII to divorce and remarry and he was head of state (goes without saying)

The problem with that is that marriage was controlled by the church for 1000 years. The key word in that statement being was. The church has absolutely no say on who can and can't marry. People of any and no religion can marry any way they choose to.

Nowadays the only thing that religions control about marriage is the ceremony. Marriage licsences are granted by the state, the benefits of marriage come from the state and divorce (if necessary) is handled by the state. All religions get is the nice little show but that's all religions get. The fact that they now want control over marriage and the ludicrous claims they make are actually quite disturbing.

It's important to remember that, not too long ago, the church was making these arguements to be against interracial couples. You'll note that the sky hasn't fallen. When same sex marriage is legalised, we'll look back at these people with the same disdain we look back at them.

Others have noted this is all about civil marriages which won't effect the church. The church fought for that. The problem is that there are denominations that want to marry same sex couples. Their freedom of religion is being volated because of the churches whims. Hopefully when the time comes the law will be changed enough to allow those groups that do want to do it the chance to. That'll have the added bonus of when the church comes to it's senses there won't need to be another alteration to the law to bring them up to speed.

[Professor Buzzkill]

shadowhive, on 10 October 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

The problem with that is that marriage was controlled by the church for 1000 years. The key word in that statement being was. The church has absolutely no say on who can and can't marry. People of any and no religion can marry any way they choose to.

Nowadays the only thing that religions control about marriage is the ceremony. Marriage licsences are granted by the state, the benefits of marriage come from the state and divorce (if necessary) is handled by the state. All religions get is the nice little show but that's all religions get. The fact that they now want control over marriage and the ludicrous claims they make are actually quite disturbing.

They are responsible for the "little ceremony" (or wedding as we call it). Should we force them to allow those who do not fit their religious view to marry in their churches with their priests?

Can you not see the hypocrisy of this statement? Freedom of religion means you can believe whatever you want and be a part of any religion you agree with. The only time we should get involved is when their rights are infringing other people rights. This is not occurring at the moment, but will occur when this law is passed.

Now you can legally allow gay marriage, and tell the religious leaders that they do not have to perform gay weddings, but as soon as a gay person is denied service because they are gay IT INFRINGES THEIR RIGHTS.

I don't believe the religious leaders would have a problem allowing "civil weddings" by law, but legalizing gay marriage means that eventually all discriminating churches will be taken to the human rights tribunal to argue one human right over the other.


Another point is that marriage is defined in all dictionaries as between a man and a woman, hence when discussing marriage between two same sex partners i use the term "gay marriage"

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 10 October 2012 - 02:49 AM.

[magebane]

<sub>It doesn't matter what the Church, Government thinks if you are Gay then you are Gay no one can change this it is a choice made by a human beings.  A choice that I would never agree with but nontheless a choice . We are all free to make our own choices that is the illusion that we think we have.  Biologically it is not a choice that agrees with nature unless nature has decided to reduce the population of Homo Sapiens????

If there is going to be a Gay Regime liken to Nazi ragime then bring it on there are more Straight people in this world then Gay's Their Regime will not last long.</sub>

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Mr Right Wing, on 09 October 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

1. I agree.
2. From my online debating I think 80% of them actually believe all people are gay. They are unable to see that their sexual desire is different from that of a hetrosexual.
3. I agree.

The lifestyle choice of homosexuality is at odds with the one deemed acceptable by religion. Homosexuals know that religion is a threat to their existance and this is why I think the ex-Archbishop is correct. I believe that given the chance homosexuals would -

1. Close down government to protect themselves.
2. Promise not to violate anyone elses rights.
3. Try to 'educate' those against them.
4. When education fails then the violation of peoples rights would begin.
5. The first violation would be the labeling of those against them as 'bigots' or 'homophobes' (Hitler used the Star of David).
6. The second violation would be employment restrictions (Hitler stopped Jews being business owners).
7. These measures will fail to make people accept their lifestyle choice leading to the third violation which is 'correction' (prison sentences and brain washing)
8. When correct fails I believe genocide would begin whereby millions of people would simply 'disappear'.

I was going to reply to this, but the replies that have already been made say all that it's possible to say in response to this. If you are just a troll (and I sincerely hope that is so, the idea that someone might actually hold views such as these is scary indeed), you're extraordinarily persistent. I can only suggest that you look for some other hobby to take up during the winter months.

Edited by 747400, 10 October 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[shadowhive]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

They are responsible for the "little ceremony" (or wedding as we call it). Should we force them to allow those who do not fit their religious view to marry in their churches with their priests?

They (and you) seem to be forgetting something. They already have a clause for them to do that. Since catholic churches don't allow divorce they are entitled not to allow people that have divorced from marrying there. In other words they don't have to marry people who don't fit their religious view. So there's already somethng that covers that. However they also don't have the right to say to those divorced people 'we don't think you should marry, so you never can'. A divorced catholic is completely free to marry  just not in a catholic church.

So as you see, that issue is already covered.

Quote

Can you not see the hypocrisy of this statement? Freedom of religion means you can believe whatever you want and be a part of any religion you agree with. The only time we should get involved is when their rights are infringing other people rights. This is not occurring at the moment, but will occur when this law is passed.

Now you can legally allow gay marriage, and tell the religious leaders that they do not have to perform gay weddings, but as soon as a gay person is denied service because they are gay IT INFRINGES THEIR RIGHTS.

As long as gay people can get married and also have the option to get married in a church that wants them to, there's really no issue. Think about it. Most religious gay people would already have migrated to more accepting churches (aka the churches that want to perform gay marriages) so why would they force those churches?

The key is if you want churches to hae the right to say no, the churches that want to say yes should be able to do so too.

Quote

I don't believe the religious leaders would have a problem allowing "civil weddings" by law, but legalizing gay marriage means that eventually all discriminating churches will be taken to the human rights tribunal to argue one human right over the other.

The law clearly says what it wants. The churches know full well the law means civil marriages but they're still causing a fuss anyway. They're shooting themselves in the foot, especially wtht he language they use. If they said 'right, we want to protections so we don't have to do this' then there wouldn't be much of an issue. Instead they're saying gay marriage will 'lead to the break down of society'. Instead of making a reasoned arguement they'd likely win, they choose to go over the top and offensive.

Quote

Another point is that marriage is defined in all dictionaries as between a man and a woman, hence when discussing marriage between two same sex partners i use the term "gay marriage"

I'll make the same two points I always make to that. Point the first, things change. If you look at an old dictionary and compare it with now, you'd find that many words have changed ther meaning (or outright been discarded).

The second point is that marriage itself has evolved. Originally, women were treated as property to be bartered with. People would exchange their daughters for land, money or animals. Over time that's changed. Marriage today is a much mpore equal state, one freely entered into by both parties (and can freely be dissolved by them as well). Why, then, should marriage not further evolve?

Just because something has existed for a long time doesn't make it right and nor should it make it immune to change and alteration. Marriage is something that has already changed a great deal since it's inception and there's really no reason not to change it further other thaan what religions say. And, since marriage isn't owned by any religion and anyone of any and no faith can legally marry, what religion has to say about the issue shouldn't be taken as law.