Homosexual marriage

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

maybe not, but they should be given the same status, whether it is liked or not, we are not living in the dark ages anymore, i hate to break it to you.

I'm not saying we are living in the dark ages - but what is Britain doing to recognize gay marriage? it's not only an issue here - but an issue everywhere. In many respects - the US through the various states are ahead of europe in what rights homosexuals have. Society will have to change the definition of marriage. I see nothing wrong with civil-unions and giving homosexual couples the same rights - but I don't think that it should be a "marriage" in the traditional sense. Gay couples can adopt in NJ, can have visitation rights of children if they break up, can visit in the hospital. I think they should also be allowed to be able to make life and death decisions too.

I don't think that gay marriage should be forced on any state, just like I don't think that a same-sex marriage ban should be part of the constitution. I think that each state should define what is right for themselves and I think that their decision should not be forced on any other state. I also think that it should be a LEGISLATIVE decision not a JUDICIAL decision. Judges do NOT make law - they enforce laws.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i cant speak for britain, i am not in government, as may be noticed

and a judges role is to interpret law, a policeman's role is to enforce law, or at least that is as it is in britain

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i cant speak for britain, i am not in government, as may be noticed

You don't have a democracy in Britain? See that is one of the differences between Europe and Canadian view of government versus the US government and the relationship to the citizens. I explained this to Nurvingil and she finally got it after a while as to why we do not say "Bush's Government" and why we have had the SAME government for roughly 225 years - since the ratification of the US Constitution. So I find it strange that you can't answer for your government when you have a democracy.

and a judges role is to interpret law, a policeman's role is to enforce law, or at least that is as it is in britain

Police only arrest people, you have JUDGES who enforce the law though in the courts. Police bring the charges to the court system though. So it is the judicial branch that enforces the law. A police officer may arrest someone - but if procedures weren't followed according to the LAW - the judge will throw out the case, even if it was for murder. So the power of the police is checked by the judicial branch.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You don't have a democracy in Britain? See that is one of the differences between Europe and Canadian view of government versus the US government and the relationship to the citizens. I explained this to Nurvingil and she finally got it after a while as to why we do not say "Bush's Government" and why we have had the SAME government for roughly 225 years - since the ratification of the US Constitution. So I find it strange that you can't answer for your government when you have a democracy.

well, seeing as how there have been no elections, of any level, since i have become of voting age - i can not answer for government at all, and my one vote wouldn't go to any of the three parties who would win anyway, i have too much conscience for that

Police only arrest people, you have JUDGES who enforce the law though in the courts. Police bring the charges to the court system though. So it is the judicial branch that enforces the law. A police officer may arrest someone - but if procedures weren't followed according to the LAW - the judge will throw out the case, even if it was for murder. So the power of the police is checked by the judicial branch.

well, judges rule by precedence and their own interpretation of the law, that is how it has worked in britain since the starr trials of henry VII, and there isn't any likelyhood of it changing anytime soon - it is a completely different system than that of america, from what i seem to be hearing

the topics over there >>>>
perhaps i ought to get back on to it...?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

well, seeing as how there have been no elections, of any level, since i have become of voting age - i can not answer for government at all, and my one vote wouldn't go to any of the three parties who would win anyway, i have too much conscience for that

It's still YOUR government though - even if you don't agree with it. But then again - our government is different than yours and no matter who is president - we still have the same government.

well, judges rule by precedence and their own interpretation of the law, that is how it has worked in britain since the starr trials of henry VII, and there isn't any likelyhood of it changing anytime soon - it is a completely different system than that of america, from what i seem to be hearing

No - it's basically the same system it's just that police can only bring charges up. Without it going to court a law can not be truly enforced. The police are only the first step in enforcing a law. The judicial branch has a three part role, enforcing the laws that the legislature puts in place, overturning any laws which are deemed unconstitutional and interpretting any laws that are passed. Judges are not there to make law - therefore they can not determine what marriage is.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

maybe not, but they should be given the same status, whether it is liked or not, we are not living in the dark ages anymore, i hate to break it to you.

What do the dark ages have to do with anything? (unless you're saying we should assume EVERYTHING believed in the dark ages is wrong! )

[Nurvingiel]

Hey, lots of Americans talk about "the government" when they're really talking about "the administration". No wonder it took me so long to get it.

I think for the purpose of discussion we can say that the Canadian government, the British government, and the American administration are equivelant governing bodies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hey, lots of Americans talk about "the government" when they're really talking about "the administration". No wonder it took me so long to get it.

I've never heard of an American referring to the adminstrarion as the government. The only time I have heard it used is wqhen talknig about BOTH Congress and the President. Since most non-Americans don't think of Congress when thinking of the US government - you may think they are only referring to the president.

I think for the purpose of discussion we can say that the Canadian government, the British government, and the American administration are equivelant governing bodies.

NO it's not - because neither the president nor his adminstration has any contol over the issue of marriage at all. Unlike your "government". So I do not see how they are equivalent to this discussion. The president's adminstration is the preisdent, secretary of state, secretary of defense, secretary of education, etc.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

IR I'm stating WHY marriage was invented. Read my obove post. YOu may not like the reason why marriage was invented - but that is the reason.

Oh you were there when they "invented" marriage? Were you also there watching that guy that came up with the wheel? What was the reason for that exactly? So that Ug could get from one cave to the other? And does that mean that no one in the history of time is allowed to use it for any other purpose because the Wheel Founders Board has established it as so?

What is this marriage "institute" you speak of? You can no more establish the "reason for marriage" as you can the reason for having kids. And it is completely irrelevant to the discusion of modern day marriage anyway. There is no single reason for marriage. And anyway why in the world would i not like your fake reason for "inventing" marriage exactly?

[Nurvingiel]

Well, having and raising children is a perfectly good reason to get married. It is one reason many people to get married and has been for a long time. However, a couple usually has more than one reason to get married. I think I posted a list of ideas in the other marriage thread.
Societies in the past and today have a variety of reasons for marriage including (but definitely not limited to)...

1. Love
2. Economic alliance
3. Political alliance
4. Create environment to produce and raise a family
5. More efficient at accomplishing work
6. More efficient resource-sharing
7. ...

This list is very short. I'm sure I thought of more the last time I posted that. Anyway you get the point. Not all of these will apply to all societies, and within societies they won't apply to all marriages. It's worth noting societies don't always consider the same thing a marriage.
Personally, when I get married (and I have someone in mind ), the reasons, in order, will be: love, create an environment to produce and raise a family, and economic alliance. (The last two are highly intertwined.)

I fail see why two men or two women getting married would disrupt the social order of Western society.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree with what you said, and I would add that IMO, it is also for bringing two amazing and wildly different types of people together - a man and a woman - and making them one, for the blessing of each other and those around them. IMO, men and women are intrinsically different, and marriage is a bringing together of these intrinsically different beings and weaving them into a greater whole, without diminishing their individuality. And it is critically important, IMO, that it should stay male and female, for that reason. And that's also why IMO it doesn't matter if they can have children or not.

Now, with my above post in mind, I still fail to see why allowing gay marriage would "ruin it" (my words) for straight couples. If your neighbours can get married, how does that affect your own marriage?
Further, of course there are differences between men and women. There are observeable physical differences between men and women, but this is such a minutely small part of our overall being that I don't see why this should be a requirement for marriage. I would absolutely abhor living in a society where physical differences made the pre-requisite for marriage.
As for the ability and/or desire to have children as a pre-requisite, I agree with you that this is irrelevant. However, what were the amazing and wild differences then?
I'll let you respond before I go on with this line of reasoning.

As for non-physical differences, men and women are not that different. I am as different from a random woman as I am from a random man. And how could we possibly legistlate that?
Don't forget that I'm talking about legal, government-sanctioned marriages here. I think churches can define and preform religious marriage in whichever way their faiths dictate.

With respect to marriage laws, I strongly oppose one group of people gaining more priveldges than another group based on sexual orientation.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Oh you were there when they "invented" marriage? Were you also there watching that guy that came up with the wheel? What was the reason for that exactly? So that Ug could get from one cave to the other? And does that mean that no one in the history of time is allowed to use it for any other purpose because the Wheel Founders Board has established it as so?

Your sarcasm here concerning this is ridiclous. You don't have to be somewhere to know where the insitution of marriage was for - all you have tol do is study the various reasons or read.

What is this marriage "institute" you speak of? You can no more establish the "reason for marriage" as you can the reason for having kids. And it is completely irrelevant to the discusion of modern day marriage anyway. There is no single reason for marriage. And anyway why in the world would i not like your fake reason for "inventing" marriage exactly?

How is it fake? That is the key reason for the purpose for marriage.. Sorry to break it to you. YOu may not like it - you may not agree with it - but that is the key reason for the institution for marriage.

[Insidious Rex]

You do realize that a lot of sociologists and anthropologists would disagree with your limited assesment regarding marriage. And be able to back it up with reams of evidence showing it wasnt simply "invented" to have kids. Specifically the countless cultures in which the raising of children is not simply relegated to the parents (like it is here with less and less success I might add) but to the immediate community at large. And you do realize also that your point is completely irrelevant to my point of

There is no single reason for marriage.

so youll need a better reason to restrict gays from getting married.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the only people i know of that would agree that marriage exists to create children would of course be functionalists, such as talcott parsons,
"The family is the primary socialisation process, giving children society's norms and values"

most sociologists have varying views on marriage and the family, for marxists the family is an ISA, designed to perpetuate the hierachial class system through subservience and deference,

just my 2 pence worth on the matter (Speaking as an A Grade a-level sociology student)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It doesn't have to be in a frigging definition. It's what the INSTITUTE of marriage was created for. It wasn't just invented so people could have sex you know or so people could have joint checking accounts or to allow people to file joint tax returns. The institute of marriage was created so people could raise children.

But people don't have to be married to raise children. I'm sure there are plenty of unmarried couples that raise children. There are also pleanty of married couples who don't have children and don't want children. People get married because they love eachother and love is not a different thing whether you are gay or straight.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Now, with my above post in mind, I still fail to see why allowing gay marriage would "ruin it" (my words) for straight couples. If your neighbours can get married, how does that affect your own marriage?

Let me explain this in part. If we have marriages performed between homosexuals, it will be a declaration of the state that a man can take the place of a woman in a marriage, or a woman the place of a man. It says that the traditional man-woman marriage is not superior at all.

Now let's say I have a family. My kids are going to be growing up in an environment where these marriages are called the same thing as mine. Society in general will be against my view. It would be very hard to give my children a traditional Christian upbringing while we are in such an environment.

Furthermore, in my view there are risks of this marriage-alterring going even further. Society may say that three men can marry one woman, or that three men can marry a donkey. It would be very tough for me to shield my children from views thrown at them by society, views that marriage isn't something beautiful and God-created but is a term tossed around for a hundred things.

So upbringing for children is a major issue. But there also is the issue that it would be simply painful to live in a society where these . . . other kinds of relationships are called equal with my own bond with my wife. Marriage is such a precious and infinitely important institution that living in a society where it is worth dirt (homosexuality wouldn't likely be the end of the redefining process) would be a tragedy both to me and my marriage partner. Even if it is just homosexuality though, it still would to me be a sad thing to have these weaker kinds of relationships be called equivalent to heterosexual marriage. I know you have noted that I call them weaker. I believe that they are weaker. Inked has brought up statistics already that most men do not stay in relationships with other men over the long term. Also, both male and female homosexual couples do tend to be more promiscuous. I know that has not been your experience with the homosexuals you know. It has been mine. And all you have to do is look at the Gay Pride rallies to see it. When I was looking at BBC articles on the subject, the pictures showed them dressed like prostitutes and transvestites.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'll let you respond before I go on with this line of reasoning.

As for non-physical differences, men and women are not that different. I am as different from a random woman as I am from a random man. And how could we possibly legistlate that?

Well, I disagree with this view. But we are discussing that on the Theology thread.

[Lefty Scaevola]

It is no skin off my back if homosexual couple get both the benefits and the title of marriage.

[Ragnarok]

I think homosexuals should have every right to the benefits of marriage after all, according to the Declaration of Independence "all Men are created equal." Its a bit contradicting, even though the U.S. is "one nation under God" , the governemnt should still keep state power and religion seperate.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I think homosexuals should have every right to the benefits of marriage after all, according to the U.S. Constitution "all Men are created equal." Its a bit contradicting, even though the U.S. is "one nation under God" , the governemnt should still keep state power and religion seperate.

Can you please tell me where the in the Constitution it says "all men are created equal"? You seem to be getting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mixed up.

Declaration of Independence (Preamble)

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This is the preamble of the US Constitution...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you are going to quote the Constitution and say that it states something - I think you should make sure it says that first.

[Ragnarok]

Yea, I made a mistake and mixed up the two, but thank you for thoroughly clarifying that mistake instead of responding to my thought on the matter. Next time a simple "no, your wrong its not that... it is this" would be greatly appreciated.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You do realize that a lot of sociologists and anthropologists would disagree with your limited assesment regarding marriage. And be able to back it up with reams of evidence showing it wasnt simply "invented" to have kids.

I didn't say it was "simply invented to have kids". it was brought about to RAISE children though and to have both a supportive male and female figure in a person's life. of course other reasons for marriage have come into play - such as the european royal families using it to gain land and power, but the overriding historical reason for marriage was to join to people together so they can support and raise children. If a men just went around screwing every woman that walked by and the women were left to raise the children - it would be a very big hardship on the woman - especially in early civilizations where you needed to grow your own food and supply your own basic needs. Having marriage encouraged men to work to help raise the child.

Specifically the countless cultures in which the raising of children is not simply relegated to the parents (like it is here with less and less success I might add) but to the immediate community at large.

it is only with less and less sucess because the family unit is no longer valued. people get married assuming that if they don't like it after a couple of years they can just divorce.

And you do realize also that your point is completely irrelevant to my point of



so youll need a better reason to restrict gays from getting married.