There's an article on the BBC website which describes how Canada has legalized gay marriage, and it prompted me to make my own observations on the topic
( Read more... )
This is something similar to what I've been saying. If a church decides it doesn't want to marry two people because of their sex, that's their perrogative. That's their right, and the government can't do anything about it.
But about the government getting out of marriage completely... that would never work. You see, atheists and wiccans and agnostics and excommunicated catholics also like getting married, and if the state can't marry two people legally, then how are they to get married? The state marries them, not just the church, and there are numerous laws governing taxation and other things that deal with married couples.
The government should not take away someone's right to get married because of their sexual preference. That is unconstitutional. Humans have three basic rights: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
So in conclusion, I'm glad you agree with me on the "separation of church and state" idea, but I don't see how the government could have no place at all in marriage. If you don't want the government in your marriage, elope. That's really all I can see... that or get married by the church without the state knowing.
Anywho...whoever you decide to marry, have fun. And don't let the government or church tell you that you can't marry someone that you want to.
Re: Reply!deusexpirataJanuary 23 2005, 04:59:46 UTC
1) Just to clarify: read up on your Locke, the natural rights are Life, Liberty, and Property. The "unalienable" rights as specified in the Declaration of Independence are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Note that in these clauses, it does not end with "as applied to the ability of the right to be taxed by the government".
2) Marriage is religious in nature. You want to get married? Swap some rings, some spit, some fluid and there you go. Badabing badaboom. The issue we're discussing as far as the state is concerned is civil unions and the right of the state to interfere financially or socially in the private lives' of the average citizens. We shouldn't be pushing to legalize more state benefits, we should be pushing to get rid of the corrupt little number it's doing already. My taxes are used by the government to support straight unions. The "benefits" you're talking about are spousal benefits and cosigning. Easily erradicated and would save money. The government encourages straight couples to marry so that it can shove the proverbial steroids up the ass of the education system. More blossoming people, more weed-killer and fertilizer. In other words, another safety valve for tax flows and a little more corruption to give my senator a nice paid vacation time.
3) You can still marry whoever the hell you want, but the state won't recognize it. Recognition in itself is a right of the government as an institution. There's no such thing as "right to excessive public record". The issue is whether the government has the right to distribute wealth unequally or at all in this case. So, as I said, missing the point.
My belated reply warrants no ego boost. Pipe down, your penis is showing. Now, I suppose I'll move onto the next little bit of social masturbation.
Heehee, penisdeusexpirataFebruary 22 2005, 20:07:09 UTC
I agree more with this mindset.. not because I'm against the idea of homosexuals being married within the church. I could care less what churches do, but it seems very impractical to expect the government to do something when the only reason the government has any say in marriage is for the purposes of taxation, returns, claims and exceptions included. Taxes are complicated. Marriage shouldn't be, but the two have to be conditionally coordinated. Because you can't expect a gay union to conceive children themselves, and plenty of people have enough volume to bitch about how awful it would be if a gay couple adopted a child and "twisted" him or her into a homosexual, the government can't really take an intelligent position on homosexuality. On the one hand, it can be called natural because it's had a place in human history for thousands of years. On the other hand, it can be called disgusting, perverse and completely unnatural because man and woman complement eachother so wonderfully.. whereas anything else seems a bit grotesque. But since I can't think like a queer, I have no idea what goes on in their heads.
I'd refrain from calling them people, but that might be rude. Kidding.. -Sloth
But about the government getting out of marriage completely... that would never work. You see, atheists and wiccans and agnostics and excommunicated catholics also like getting married, and if the state can't marry two people legally, then how are they to get married? The state marries them, not just the church, and there are numerous laws governing taxation and other things that deal with married couples.
The government should not take away someone's right to get married because of their sexual preference. That is unconstitutional. Humans have three basic rights: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
So in conclusion, I'm glad you agree with me on the "separation of church and state" idea, but I don't see how the government could have no place at all in marriage. If you don't want the government in your marriage, elope. That's really all I can see... that or get married by the church without the state knowing.
Anywho...whoever you decide to marry, have fun. And don't let the government or church tell you that you can't marry someone that you want to.
*yawn* well I'm getting tired, so g'nite.
-Hunter
Reply
2) Marriage is religious in nature. You want to get married? Swap some rings, some spit, some fluid and there you go. Badabing badaboom. The issue we're discussing as far as the state is concerned is civil unions and the right of the state to interfere financially or socially in the private lives' of the average citizens. We shouldn't be pushing to legalize more state benefits, we should be pushing to get rid of the corrupt little number it's doing already. My taxes are used by the government to support straight unions. The "benefits" you're talking about are spousal benefits and cosigning. Easily erradicated and would save money. The government encourages straight couples to marry so that it can shove the proverbial steroids up the ass of the education system. More blossoming people, more weed-killer and fertilizer. In other words, another safety valve for tax flows and a little more corruption to give my senator a nice paid vacation time.
3) You can still marry whoever the hell you want, but the state won't recognize it. Recognition in itself is a right of the government as an institution. There's no such thing as "right to excessive public record". The issue is whether the government has the right to distribute wealth unequally or at all in this case. So, as I said, missing the point.
My belated reply warrants no ego boost. Pipe down, your penis is showing. Now, I suppose I'll move onto the next little bit of social masturbation.
Reply
I'd refrain from calling them people, but that might be rude.
Kidding..
-Sloth
Reply
Leave a comment