A Serious Issue

[teric]

I have been hesitant to post about this issue in the past, because I have no desire to offend anyone nor create a flame war. However, I have realized how truly important this issue is, and I feel that it is morally imperative that I speak about it in the online community

Comments

[teric]

Thank for for your objective reply, Kath. I'll respond to your thoughts

[teric]

I'm sorry Kath, I just re-read what I wrote, and I see now that I was unclear. *bonk self*

What I meant to say was that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples constitutes a fundamental change to the nature of marriage itself.

I realize that same-sex couples may feel that they are the victims of discrimination. To be honest, it pains me when I see them hurting because of this. I don't know how to separate the perception that this is discrimination (which is not true), from the actual issue, which is the basic definition of marriage.

As far as I understand, traditional marriage and civil unions are already identical in every way except title. Please correct me if I'm wrong?

8

[fatfoxcoon]

I agree with kathrishali. I don't think marriage should be defined at all. if 2 pepole love enoachother enough no matter the gender they shopuld be allowed.

But whatever you for for scales im not going to aguee. everyone is entitled to there own opinion and im not going to say who is right or wrong.

on another note I hope you are doing well!

Re: 8

[teric]

Hiya Vicky! It's been a while since we've chatted/corresponded.

We're doing pretty well, though I've been VERY busy lately with work--new Dungeons and Dragons project in the works. Sorry I haven't been able to tune into the radio show lately. :(

Re: 8

[fatfoxcoon]

so you finaly are allowed to tell what this new rpg game is huh? either that or A: you slipped and didn't know B: that's just a generic term for a Dungen crawler rpg C: it's another game all together.

Re: 8

[teric]

Sadly, the Wii RPG that we've been working on got canned last month. It is sitting on a shelf gathering dust. :(

This week, we are starting a whole new game project, based on Dungeons and Dragons.

[hafoc]

The problem, as I see it, is that marriage is both a religious sacrament and a legal contract. We allow preachers to perform a religious ceremony called a "marriage" and then allow that preacher's words and that religious ceremony to have the force of law, in violation of the provision of the Bill of Rights prohibiting establishment of a state religion. Specifically, the denial of peoples' legal privlieges because it doesn't conform to somebody else's religious beliefs.

To solve this, we should remove any recognition of church marriages in law. Preachers could still do whatever they wanted to do and ensure the sanctity of their sacraments to their hearts' content, for anybody who cares, but the legally binding contract we currently call a marriage would have to be done elsewhere by a civil authority such as a judge. That's the system they use in France, and it seems to work well enough.

[teric]

That is an interesting suggestion, Hafoc, and I am inclined to agree with the notion that state-recognized marriages should be performed by the state, separate from the religious ceremonies. It might result in less confusion and less waving of red flags by those who consider such things as 'crossing the line' between church and state.

However, I fail to see how state-recognized religious marriages results in the "denial of peoples' legal privileges because [they don't] conform to somebody else's religious beliefs." I know of no heterosexual couple that was denied the right to marry simply because they disagreed with the religious views of a church or institution. If they disagree with the manner in which a specific marriage ceremony is performed, they are free to go to a different church that is more suitable to their preferences, or to be married civilly by the state. In none of these cases are any 'legal privileges' denied the couple.

I'm with you, man.

[anonymous]

For what it's worth, I'm with you on all counts Rob.

-Brig

[richard_renard]

I too don't want to say anything bad or anything. So I'll pitch in my penny for a thought. I've been walking in both side between Christan and Pegan and Light and Twilight, I had seen how some part of relationship start and try to workout. It's easy for a man and woman could get married & have kids. But When two of the same sex wants to get hitched, everybody get all confused and say something bad like they are sin of god or something.

Even thought I'm straight I don't mind some of my friends are gay. If they are happy for whom they are and they want to be together I have no trouble with that. Sure it may truns some heads, or make them feel unconfitable.

[richard_renard]

I too have friends that are gay, Richard, some of them very good friends. Though I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I do not feel that I have the right to tell them who they can and cannot love. Moreover, as I firmly believe that we are all God's children, every one of us has a right to respect and dignity, and thus I strive to treat everyone that way.

Proposition 8 does not restrict anyone, gay or straight, from having a relationship with someone they love. Nor does it prevent them from forming a legally-recognized union, with equal rights for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

All it seeks to do is preserve the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

[teric]

The previous post was from me, by the way.