(no subject)
This came up in discussion over in the AP forum of IMVU, and I am stating my own particular views here, along with a quote of a post that I took exception to:
badboy wrote:
Opposed people? Hmmm... Well here I am!
I'm opposed to Gay Marriage. If a man and a man, or a woman and a woman want to get together - Go right ahead and have a civil union.
Just don't come around expecting the same rights and benefits of someone who has a traditional marriage. A Marriage, defined as a union of a man and a woman is a civil contract *and* a spiritual one. The laws that are written are for that civil contract. The spiritual one does not apply to this discussion.
The government is intended to win. In a Marriage, the likely result is a child or children, created by them - for better or worse, they become sweet little taxpayers in 18 years, and thus are a way to ensure the continuity of the government system.
In a civil union, this would not be the case. (although extraordinary means may be brought to bear to create a child... it still takes the egg of a woman, and the sperm of a man).
I won't argue whether gay couples are better or worse parents, that depends on the person.
Gay couples are entitled to all of the legal protections that married couples have... I'll not dispute that either. Fine, have survivor's benefits, equitable distribution of assets, ability to be the one who speaks for you when you can't speak for yourself. But it simply is not a marriage. No tax breaks.
California got it right. They aren't telling you who you can love, they aren't telling you that you can never "be" with the one you love, all they are saying is that you can't call it a Marriage. And Marriage is a legal term, always intended to be that union between a man and a woman. California just made sure that the intention of the legal term was correct.
So have your civil unions, but no, you can't be married in my book.
I would put forth the proposition that technically you have no right to legislate whether or not your gay/lesbian next door can or cannot marry. We all have to live in the same country, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with a particular stance. If you agree with your pastor that same marriage is bad, don't worry, I won't be attending that church any time soon. However, that being said--as a legitimate taxpayer in the same county/city, the government is by law required to respect my rights as well as yours. And If I belong to a church that supports same marriage, then I'm happy in mine... and you'll be happy in yours and we can have an amicable agreement to disagree.
Further more, on the issue of the spiritual bonding of marriage in and of itself... what marriage historically has been has been a socio-economic joining of two families with state-and religious-sanctioned bonding. That is to say, in some cultures if you want to marry, You have to provide a bride price; in others you have to provide a dowry. For those confused, bride price is the man going to the father of prospective bride and saying "I want to marry your daughter, what do you think is a fair price for her?" In the case of the dowry, it's the father of the prospective bride going to the father of the prospective groom and saying, "Your son wants to marry my daughter, what is a fair price for me to give to you?"
These days, arranged marriages have sort have fallen by the wayside, which given the rate of divorces is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, who wants to live forever in a relationship that neither chose, and occassionally being in an S&M relationship without the caring and respect that comes with it (I.e. an abusive one--which women are equally as capable at dishing out abuse as men are, it's just the male oriented line is better published in the media).
So we have a socio-economic pact between two families... as far as the spiritual side goes--if I belong to a church that allows and permits same- marriages/unions then how am I being evil? Especially if we love and wish to cement our willingness to commit to that socio-economic pact. As God works in mysterious ways, yes he did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but given the change between the Old Testament and the New, how do you know that God didn't repent what he did there... and then tried to change things by incarnating Jesus--kind of trying to apologize for how he screwed us over big time...
Followed by Mohammed--if the Koran is to be believed.
Either way, that doesn't give you the right to legislate whom I can and cannot marry; since I don't have that right either to legislate your right to marry whom you wish. But you want to support the Proposition 8, which is technically unconstitutional since you are efficiently descriminating against a specific group of people their right to worship and in their worship marry as they see fit... see that weird thing you call spirituality comes in many forms and shapes--and God (however one wishes to view 'it') does not always reveal him/herself/itself in the same way to everyone.
Addendum to my original comment above:
In passing Proposition 8, what is happening is an attempt of one or several religious denominations to illegally suppress through the legislative process the 'right' to marry and all of the problems and privileges that go with that status for select groups of individuals. Hell, the mormons realizing the attempts to squash their own practice of polygyny back in the day should have been amongst the first to vote against proposition 8 since it's effectively the same discrimination that denied them their own particular institutions and statehood back in 1890. Rather than being amongst the people to gather support for the passage of Prop 8.
If you permit the concept of civil unions amongst same gender couples, then such unions should be permitted for all of the privileges and tax deductions incumbent therein. At the same time, as stated... In keeping a separation of Church and State, in passing such discriminatory legislation in view of religious ideology you are in firm violation of the separation. Secondly, as stated, since one religious organization--regardless of their numbers or quantities has any right to legislate in the public forum what another group can and cannot do, they should sit down and shut up.
And if same sex marriage is to be banned, alright... in the interests of fairness and equity ban heterosexual marriage as well. Unless you can live with being a hypocrite. These aren't the dark ages any more people. It's time for you to grow up and stop the Inquisition--which along with the 700 Club will land you in Hell a lot quicker than I'll ever get there.
badboy wrote:
Opposed people? Hmmm... Well here I am!
I'm opposed to Gay Marriage. If a man and a man, or a woman and a woman want to get together - Go right ahead and have a civil union.
Just don't come around expecting the same rights and benefits of someone who has a traditional marriage. A Marriage, defined as a union of a man and a woman is a civil contract *and* a spiritual one. The laws that are written are for that civil contract. The spiritual one does not apply to this discussion.
The government is intended to win. In a Marriage, the likely result is a child or children, created by them - for better or worse, they become sweet little taxpayers in 18 years, and thus are a way to ensure the continuity of the government system.
In a civil union, this would not be the case. (although extraordinary means may be brought to bear to create a child... it still takes the egg of a woman, and the sperm of a man).
I won't argue whether gay couples are better or worse parents, that depends on the person.
Gay couples are entitled to all of the legal protections that married couples have... I'll not dispute that either. Fine, have survivor's benefits, equitable distribution of assets, ability to be the one who speaks for you when you can't speak for yourself. But it simply is not a marriage. No tax breaks.
California got it right. They aren't telling you who you can love, they aren't telling you that you can never "be" with the one you love, all they are saying is that you can't call it a Marriage. And Marriage is a legal term, always intended to be that union between a man and a woman. California just made sure that the intention of the legal term was correct.
So have your civil unions, but no, you can't be married in my book.
I would put forth the proposition that technically you have no right to legislate whether or not your gay/lesbian next door can or cannot marry. We all have to live in the same country, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with a particular stance. If you agree with your pastor that same marriage is bad, don't worry, I won't be attending that church any time soon. However, that being said--as a legitimate taxpayer in the same county/city, the government is by law required to respect my rights as well as yours. And If I belong to a church that supports same marriage, then I'm happy in mine... and you'll be happy in yours and we can have an amicable agreement to disagree.
Further more, on the issue of the spiritual bonding of marriage in and of itself... what marriage historically has been has been a socio-economic joining of two families with state-and religious-sanctioned bonding. That is to say, in some cultures if you want to marry, You have to provide a bride price; in others you have to provide a dowry. For those confused, bride price is the man going to the father of prospective bride and saying "I want to marry your daughter, what do you think is a fair price for her?" In the case of the dowry, it's the father of the prospective bride going to the father of the prospective groom and saying, "Your son wants to marry my daughter, what is a fair price for me to give to you?"
These days, arranged marriages have sort have fallen by the wayside, which given the rate of divorces is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, who wants to live forever in a relationship that neither chose, and occassionally being in an S&M relationship without the caring and respect that comes with it (I.e. an abusive one--which women are equally as capable at dishing out abuse as men are, it's just the male oriented line is better published in the media).
So we have a socio-economic pact between two families... as far as the spiritual side goes--if I belong to a church that allows and permits same- marriages/unions then how am I being evil? Especially if we love and wish to cement our willingness to commit to that socio-economic pact. As God works in mysterious ways, yes he did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but given the change between the Old Testament and the New, how do you know that God didn't repent what he did there... and then tried to change things by incarnating Jesus--kind of trying to apologize for how he screwed us over big time...
Followed by Mohammed--if the Koran is to be believed.
Either way, that doesn't give you the right to legislate whom I can and cannot marry; since I don't have that right either to legislate your right to marry whom you wish. But you want to support the Proposition 8, which is technically unconstitutional since you are efficiently descriminating against a specific group of people their right to worship and in their worship marry as they see fit... see that weird thing you call spirituality comes in many forms and shapes--and God (however one wishes to view 'it') does not always reveal him/herself/itself in the same way to everyone.
Addendum to my original comment above:
In passing Proposition 8, what is happening is an attempt of one or several religious denominations to illegally suppress through the legislative process the 'right' to marry and all of the problems and privileges that go with that status for select groups of individuals. Hell, the mormons realizing the attempts to squash their own practice of polygyny back in the day should have been amongst the first to vote against proposition 8 since it's effectively the same discrimination that denied them their own particular institutions and statehood back in 1890. Rather than being amongst the people to gather support for the passage of Prop 8.
If you permit the concept of civil unions amongst same gender couples, then such unions should be permitted for all of the privileges and tax deductions incumbent therein. At the same time, as stated... In keeping a separation of Church and State, in passing such discriminatory legislation in view of religious ideology you are in firm violation of the separation. Secondly, as stated, since one religious organization--regardless of their numbers or quantities has any right to legislate in the public forum what another group can and cannot do, they should sit down and shut up.
And if same sex marriage is to be banned, alright... in the interests of fairness and equity ban heterosexual marriage as well. Unless you can live with being a hypocrite. These aren't the dark ages any more people. It's time for you to grow up and stop the Inquisition--which along with the 700 Club will land you in Hell a lot quicker than I'll ever get there.