This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
California Ban on Gay Marriage deemed unconstitutional - overturned
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Meh, I'm in Canada lol; what them silly Americans do to screw themselves over is not really my business... Hmmm... I think it is screwed up when the government says we can and cannot get married. Why does government have any business saying what we can or can't do. Marriage is a religious ceremony. I don't understand how someone can applaud the separation of church and state in one breath, and uphold state sanctioned gay marriage in the next. The government has neither power to grant gay marriage, nor deny it. That would be God's power. Isn't that what matters anyway? What God thinks of a union under God? Why does anyone care what the state of California thinks about their marriage? I certain don't.also, more money for Canada when American gays come north to get married. Oh yes... there are HUGE amounts of money there. Canada's economy is saved!
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Meh, I'm in Canada lol; what them silly Americans do to screw themselves over is not really my business... Hmmm... I think it is screwed up when the government says we can and cannot get married. Why does government have any business saying what we can or can't do. Marriage is a religious ceremony. I don't understand how someone can applaud the separation of church and state in one breath, and uphold state sanctioned gay marriage in the next. The government has neither power to grant gay marriage, nor deny it. That would be God's power. Isn't that what matters anyway? What God thinks of a union under God? Why does anyone care what the state of California thinks about their marriage? I certain don't.Agree... for the most part; not the same religious belief as you, so don't really consider the God angle. Of course, the government seems to think it should be the same as the religion so yeah.... not much you can do there(or better put, the religion is running the government).
also, more money for Canada when American gays come north to get married. Oh yes... there are HUGE amounts of money there. Canada's economy is saved!
You'd be surprised in the amount of money that tourism brought in when it was first announced that Gay Marriages were legal in Canada, as people from abroad(including the States), came here to do the deed.
Post by
kattib
Hey MyTie, there is more then one religion/god/marriage ceremony then just christianity
You can have a secular marriage under a judge and one of the reasons is there are tax benefits for married couples. Marriage is not exclusively under god, so dont try to insinuate it is.
(personally if we had to find a god that would be good with gay marriage and all I vote Dionysus he was a pretty chill dude.)
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kibbles
Illegalize gay marriage! It is unnatural!
Is this before or after the snake starts talking and Moses parts the waters of the Red Sea?
Post by
Orranis
MyTie, you can get married outside of a church, many people do, and since marriage is recognized by law (the government), they can restrict, or not restrict, what they view as marriage.
I agree with you on the idea that marriage in general can be outside of any church or religious organization, but the problem with this statement is CAN. We understand they CAN restrict it, the point here is whether or not they SHOULD.
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
im gonna marry my guy friend... im also a guy.... and we want to avoid paying higher taxes than people who aren't married..
marriage is a beautiful thing...
maybe i'll file for divorce in a few years...
hehehhehe. im already gonna bend the system...
*Deadpan* Yes, because your the only person who has ever thought of that.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There are two different meanings of marriage.
The "religious" meaning has been around for a couple thousand years. It is based around religious, social, and emotional considerations. I use the term religious, because that is what is generally thrown around, but it encompasses more than that.
The secular meaning is relatively recent, and it really comes down to a single consideration: children. It's a contract arrangement that exists to support a family (specifically the children) until they have grown.
So, in short what should this mean? Private religious or social organizations should provide the former, while the government provides the latter. If two gays want to get married, they need to find an organization to recognize them (or if they don't care about recognition, to just marry themselves). If they want to adopt, or have kids in any other way, they need government recognition.
Post by
Heckler
The secular meaning is relatively recent, and it really comes down to a single consideration: children. It's a contract arrangement that exists to support a family (specifically the children) until they have grown.
I don't agree with this, and I highly doubt you'll find 'Marriage' defined in any legal text as simply a child-production mechanism. If this were true, then sterile people wouldn't be allowed to get married either. In my state, a law was recently put forward that required the annulment of any marriage that did not result in a pregnancy within four years. This law was (of course) defeated, because that is not the purpose of marriage at all (the group that put this law forward was pro-gay marriage, and I think it was pretty smart, from a legal strategy perspective).
In my opinion, a marriage is simply the establishment of a household between two people, because society believes that households are a social good, even if they only involve two people. Why the gender of these two people even matters at all, or why religion is even considered as part of the discussion, has always been confusing for me.
Since religious marriage has existed far longer than secular marriage, I think we should just change the name of secular marriage and allow any two people to form "civil unions" instead. Leave the religious word to the religious world. The first amendment, and the "wall of separation between church and state" is meant both to protect religion from government, and to protect government from religion. So let's take the religiously tainted word "marriage" and throw it out of institutionalized government contracts altogether.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The secular meaning is relatively recent, and it really comes down to a single consideration: children. It's a contract arrangement that exists to support a family (specifically the children) until they have grown.
I don't agree with this, and I highly doubt you'll find 'Marriage' defined in any legal text as simply a child-production mechanism. If this were true, then sterile people wouldn't be allowed to get married either. In my state, a law was recently put forward that required the annulment of any marriage that did not result in a pregnancy within four years. This law was (of course) defeated, because that is not the purpose of marriage at all (the group that put this law forward was pro-gay marriage, and I think it was pretty smart, from a legal strategy perspective).
In my opinion, a marriage is simply the establishment of a household between two people, because society believes that households are a social good, even if they only involve two people. Why the gender of these two people even matters at all, or why religion is even considered as part of the discussion, has always been confusing for me.
Since religious marriage has existed far longer than secular marriage, I think we should just change the name of secular marriage and allow any two people to form "civil unions" instead. Leave the religious word to the religious world. The first amendment, and the "wall of separation between church and state" is meant both to protect religion from government, and to protect government from religion. So let's take the religiously tainted word "marriage" and throw it out of institutionalized government contracts altogether.
Using a "what-is" argument against my "should-be" argument makes no sense.
But to respond.
Look at your second paragraph. You used the word "
social
." Now, read my post again, and you'll see that social falls under the first form. Government has no business screwing with the social aspects of a person anymore than the religious or emotional aspects.
Post by
Heckler
Using a "what-is" argument against my "should-be" argument makes no sense.
My bad? I didn't see any "should-be" indicators in your post.
Government has no business screwing with the social aspects of a person anymore than the religious or emotional aspects.
So religious "marriage" shouldn't be a government recognized legal contract anyways then, right? I think you're making my point, if the marriage you're speaking of is truly outside the government's sphere of responsibility, then not only should we de-legalize gay marriage, we should de-legalize all marriage, and put it in the same category as baptism or confession, and remove all government recognition whether its male-female or not.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Government has no business screwing with the social aspects of a person anymore than the religious or emotional aspects.
So religious "marriage" shouldn't be a government recognized legal contract anyways then, right?
Private religious or social organizations should provide the former, while the government provides the latter.
Post by
Heckler
So I guess we agree (I'm referring to my final paragraph)? I'm not seeing where there is any justification against gay marriage in the "secular marriage" that you defined (so long as you allow for adoption, as you mentioned in the final paragraph). I guess my question is, do you think that two men should be allowed to form the same legal contract as a man and a woman currently can? I'm having trouble finding the answer in your words so far.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.