|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
mynxcat
|
|
response 82 of 293:
| 
Dec 8 17:20 UTC 2003 |
A lot of Indian marriages are conducted with two ceremonies - the
religious and the civil. The civil one is really just the signing of
the marriage certificate, but it's separate from the religious one.
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 293:
|
Dec 8 17:27 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:81: Some just want the civil features of marriage, yes. Those
are the people who fully support civil union laws. But there are some
people who also want the symbolism of marriage, and they aren't so keen
on the "seperate but equal" arrangement a civil union would represent.
Personally, I'd be happy to see either one succeed. I think a civil
union arrangement is more likely, because a lot of people have a
visceral negative reaction to the word "marriage" being attached to
anything but a traditional male/femaile relationship.
|
klg
|
|
response 84 of 293:
|
Dec 8 17:29 UTC 2003 |
re # 74: Ooops... It appears Ms. keesan made a boo-boo - like leaving
out the most relevant part of the definition, which follows. (We
suppose we would have no moral objections to a painting marrying a
poem, if that makes you feel any better.)
Marriage
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband
and wife : c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a
special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding
and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is
effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities
or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry>
(Was it the Chesire cat who stated that words mean only what he says
they mean? Clearly, that was illogical to Mr. Carroll - and it is
illogical today.)
re: "#79 (gull): Re resp:56: You're confused.. . ."
Which is not unsual for Mr. richard.
"Actually, I don't know anyone who favors it because they
want to "weaken the bonds" of marriage."
Perhaps you do not. But, then again, there is the law of unintended
consequences.
re: "#81 of 82 by Joe (gelinas) on Mon Dec 8 12:06:52 2003:
As I understand things, gays ar looking to marriage for the ancillaries:
next-of-kin, inheritance, joint tax returns."
All of which can be arranged in the absence of marriage.
"polyandry and polygyny have both been practiced, with success."
Really?!?!?!?!
|
lk
|
|
response 85 of 293:
|
Dec 8 17:37 UTC 2003 |
Bruce, the whole point behind the separation of church and state is that
it doesn't matter if what you do violates religious laws provided you
don't violate civil law. The latter rules for everyone, the former only
for those who wish them (to some extent or another).
Thus, eating pork violates religious rules -- no less than a gay marriage
does. (And yet some people who don't eat pork will eat shrimp, which is
no less an offense.)
Religion does not own a trade-mark on the word "marriage", and as gull
said extending marriage is neither intended to nor does it weaken it.
You don't believe that "infidel" Muslim "marriage" weakens the meaning
of Christian marriage -- do you?
You may also want to look into a book by Boswell about gay marriages
performed in the early years of the Church.
|
bru
|
|
response 86 of 293:
|
Dec 8 20:35 UTC 2003 |
Did I say anything against any other religion? Does any other religion
endorse gay marriage? Or do other religions hold gay relationships as an
abomination?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 87 of 293:
|
Dec 8 20:44 UTC 2003 |
There are a number of smaller Christian churches that have
elected to perform gay marriages and an even larger number
that wouldn't perform such a ceremony (yet?) but would stop
well short of considering it "an abomination."
|
flem
|
|
response 88 of 293:
|
Dec 8 20:48 UTC 2003 |
If you want to consider marriage to be a purely religious arrangement on
which a particular religion can impose whatever conditions it likes,
that's fine with me -- but only if being married has no legal
implications whatsoever for anyone. Because of the *legal* priveleges
accorded to married couples, the Supreme Court of MA has quite correctly
declared that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage to gays. You
can't have it both ways. Either the legal priveleges go along with
marriage as a package deal and anyone can get married, or marriage can
be restricted but it has no legal consequences.
I think we require religiously married couples to have a separate civil
union ceremony before they receive any legal benefits.
|
gull
|
|
response 89 of 293:
|
Dec 8 21:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 90 of 293:
|
Dec 8 21:07 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:84: Hmm...so if we're supposed to take your definition as the
final word, that means anyone who cannot have children shouldn't be
allowed to marry, right? ("...for the purpose of founding
and maintaining a family")
|
happyboy
|
|
response 91 of 293:
|
Dec 8 22:53 UTC 2003 |
re86: do some research, stink-o.
|
keesan
|
|
response 92 of 293:
|
Dec 8 23:39 UTC 2003 |
Just because there are three definitions in Webster does not mean that you
have to fit ALL of them. You get a choice.
Isn't it the marriage of true minds not two minds?
|
vidar
|
|
response 93 of 293:
|
Dec 9 00:02 UTC 2003 |
What seems to be happening here is a case of "you have to do what I
believe is right, because if you believe differently than me you are
WRONG and will GO TO HELL." I got way too much of this attitude when I
went to school in Malaysia, and please excuse my language, but I showed
them that I wasn't swallowing any of the shit they tried to feed me.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 94 of 293:
|
Dec 9 01:25 UTC 2003 |
Bruce, there are a number of Christian denominations that would be happy to
marry gay couples if gay marriage were legal under the civil laws.
|
lk
|
|
response 95 of 293:
|
Dec 9 03:33 UTC 2003 |
In addition, Reform Judaism and some Conservative Rabbis will perform gay
marriage ceremonies. Again, due to the law, they can only issue religous,
but not legal, certificates.
I'm also not sure you understood my example regarding "infidel Muslim
marriage". If the term "marriage" can be applied to "infidels" without
weakening the institution, why would applying it to a loving Christian
couple (who happened to be gay) weaken it?
Furthermore, if either of these can be said to weaken the institution, then
it must be pretty weak on its own merits. I don't believe it is. Do you?
|
klg
|
|
response 96 of 293:
|
Dec 9 04:01 UTC 2003 |
re: "#92 (keesan): Just because there are three definitions in
Webster does not mean that you have to fit ALL of them..."
Certainly not. You just need to fit the RELEVANT ONES.
Mr. flem,
Anyone CAN get married. (Well, perhaps it may be limited to non-
institutionalized, competent humans of age who are not related by
blood or currently married.) Except, one cannot marry somebody of the
same sex.
|
twenex
|
|
response 97 of 293:
|
Dec 9 08:36 UTC 2003 |
#86 is a PERFECT example of why one should NEVER trust a conservative:
they expect you to do what they want, because if you don't, you're
gonna be subject to hellfire and damnation in their eyes, whether or
not this is actually going to happen when you die. But, of course, it
is ok for them to do whatever the hell they want, because the end
justifies the means.
Once again, conservatism shows it's Ultimate Power: The power to
disgust and horrify anyone with a brain.
|
slynne
|
|
response 98 of 293:
|
Dec 9 18:44 UTC 2003 |
If certain religions are willing to marry homosexuals, is a violation
of constitutional freedom of religion protection to deny those people
the usual legal rights associated with marriage? Or is religion not
really a part of the secular, civil definition of marriage? And if
religion is not part of the secular, civil definition of marriage, why
are we limiting it only one man and one woman?
|
twenex
|
|
response 99 of 293:
|
Dec 9 18:51 UTC 2003 |
Depends on your POV. In the uk, divorcees getting married in church is
not allowed. So civil marriage is the way to go; OTOH, many people
choose to marry in registry offices anyway.
|
flem
|
|
response 100 of 293:
|
Dec 9 19:36 UTC 2003 |
re #96: Come on, klg. You used to be better at the straw man bit.
You've been slipping recently. Pull yourself together, man.
What I don't understand is that, even though you religious conservative
types know perfectly well that gay couples are going to burn in hell for
all eternity, you feel the need to persecute them further in this world.
Can't you leave the moral judgements to God? Don't you think he's up
to it?
|
gull
|
|
response 101 of 293:
|
Dec 9 19:46 UTC 2003 |
I think the idea is that if they make homosexuals' lives miserable
enough, they'll convert to heterosexuality, thus saving their souls.
|
flem
|
|
response 102 of 293:
|
Dec 9 19:53 UTC 2003 |
I think you're being a lot more generous to them than I would.
|
bru
|
|
response 103 of 293:
|
Dec 9 20:03 UTC 2003 |
well, I suppose that is one way to look at it. The other way is that "IF"
it is a sin, it is the duty of the Christian "not" to accept them into society
without pointing it out to them.
|
vidar
|
|
response 104 of 293:
|
Dec 9 20:21 UTC 2003 |
I tried Christianity in my childhood. While I came to disagree with
the teachings, I was never taught to hate by my Church.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 105 of 293:
|
Dec 9 20:45 UTC 2003 |
at least not *directly*.
|
keesan
|
|
response 106 of 293:
|
Dec 9 21:59 UTC 2003 |
In Ireland, you can be divorced from a non-Catholic and then marry a Catholic
in a Catholic church because the church thinks you were never married to the
non-Catholic in the first place. Never mind that you had a legal marriage
and a child during the first marriage. And they overlook the child with the
second spouse-to-be which preceeded that marriage.
|