gay marriage
- Thread starter cfleck
- Start date
octane
I have issues, OK!
I find it amusing to see the various churches of the world react like some terrified rabbit caught in the headlights of an on-coming car.
They just don't know _how_ or have the elbow room _to_ maneuver in such a fast-moving world like the one we live in.
What I will say is, I am not religious at all, but I find it quite annoying how for the most part, the vast majority of people will only go to church twice in their lives; to be christened and to be buried.
So far, I've avoided the former and will also ultimately avoid the later. But if I was priest / padre / vicar / shaman / whatever, I would not allow anyone to marry at my church unless they had been regular church-goers.
Today, for most people, there is no sanctity to marriage, it's become an entirely paper-thin, vestigial tradition of purely cosmetic appeal to be prized only for the materialistic gains it offers; married-couples tax relief, nice dress, photographs, half a dozen cruet sets, a 2-week holiday in the sun, blah, blah, blah...
They just don't know _how_ or have the elbow room _to_ maneuver in such a fast-moving world like the one we live in.
What I will say is, I am not religious at all, but I find it quite annoying how for the most part, the vast majority of people will only go to church twice in their lives; to be christened and to be buried.
So far, I've avoided the former and will also ultimately avoid the later. But if I was priest / padre / vicar / shaman / whatever, I would not allow anyone to marry at my church unless they had been regular church-goers.
Today, for most people, there is no sanctity to marriage, it's become an entirely paper-thin, vestigial tradition of purely cosmetic appeal to be prized only for the materialistic gains it offers; married-couples tax relief, nice dress, photographs, half a dozen cruet sets, a 2-week holiday in the sun, blah, blah, blah...
octane
I have issues, OK!
MBHockey said:
You can't offend me, I'm English.
And no you're not sorry or you wouldn't have said it.
I have _zero_ problems with you getting into a tizz over this, I was thinking more about the less robust among us who might not want to hear about it.
Go for it, rant all you want, don't let me get in your way...
andychrist
devil's plaything
Speaking on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said Mayor Newsom, a Democrat, needed to be stopped.
"In San Francisco it's a license for marriage of same sex," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. "Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs I mean, you can't do that. We have to stay within the law. There's a state law that says specific things, and if you want to challenge those laws, then you can go to the court."
The governor told Tim Russert, the host of "Meet the Press," that when he was in San Francisco on Friday, "all of a sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there's injured or there's dead people."
The San Francisco police have reported no violence related to the same-sex marriage certificates. Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general, suggested that Mr. Schwarzenegger might have confused his visit to San Francisco with "part of his next movie."
"In San Francisco it's a license for marriage of same sex," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. "Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs I mean, you can't do that. We have to stay within the law. There's a state law that says specific things, and if you want to challenge those laws, then you can go to the court."
The governor told Tim Russert, the host of "Meet the Press," that when he was in San Francisco on Friday, "all of a sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there's injured or there's dead people."
The San Francisco police have reported no violence related to the same-sex marriage certificates. Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general, suggested that Mr. Schwarzenegger might have confused his visit to San Francisco with "part of his next movie."
uoba
Re: member
Anyhooo... it's a cheap shot to pick-up on media outcries concerning molestation throughout the clergy. As much as it is to say there's way too many immigrants around here etc etc. Sure, it has happened, but no more than it has in schools and other walks of life. Picking up on stock quotes from the media circus won't cut it if your going to try and make a point.
As for marriage. The point of marriage is different things to different people, far too vast to bother discussing on an OS X forum.
Anyway, in my case, sometime this year (when we've got the time), it's to allow my son to have a British passport, get those tax breaks, and to legitimise the fact that we call each other Husband and Wife (which we've been doing for 2 years already... charlatans). It won't prove I love my "wife" any more than already do, but some people need that.
Some people need marriage for religious reasons (stop the press!!), including gays. For me, it certainly won't be religious, as much as Xmas isn't
As for marriage. The point of marriage is different things to different people, far too vast to bother discussing on an OS X forum.
Anyway, in my case, sometime this year (when we've got the time), it's to allow my son to have a British passport, get those tax breaks, and to legitimise the fact that we call each other Husband and Wife (which we've been doing for 2 years already... charlatans). It won't prove I love my "wife" any more than already do, but some people need that.
Some people need marriage for religious reasons (stop the press!!), including gays. For me, it certainly won't be religious, as much as Xmas isn't
Satcomer
In Geostationary Orbit
I know this will be against the tide in here. I am torn on the issue. I can understand the notion of a gay couple wanting this. I also have a traditional view of marriage. My view goes against the grain of a lot of people. I believe the idea of marriage should not be taken lightly by people (straights & homosexuals)! Divorce is WAY to HIGH in western culture! So, if the LAW allows it, then marriage should be applied EQUALLY! That INCLUDES divorce and all the fun that goes along with it!
My saying is "so be it". Just a word of warning. Marriage is not all it's cracked up to be. This is my only warning.
My saying is "so be it". Just a word of warning. Marriage is not all it's cracked up to be. This is my only warning.
chemistry_geek
Registered
Well, now I get to join in the discussion. I DO have a problem with Gay Marriage. One, it should NOT be called "marriage" as a marriage is a religious union between a MAN and a WOMAN, forms the basis of a family unit, and is recognized by laws all over the world as such with rights. If the gay population wants to get "married" or "garried" then a new term(s) should be introduced to indicate the union between a MAN and a MAN ("gamenarried"), and a WOMAN and a WOMAN ("gawarried"). We have very specific language differentiating the genders, their expected societal roles, behaviors, etc... The same should hold for the union of gay couples. The second problem I have with gay marriage is what effects these "unions" or relationships can have on their heterosexual children, assuming one partner somehow had sex with the opposite sex and is responsible for bringing a life into the world. I'm not up on the current psychology research publications, but I'd like to know for sure how these experiences affect children. If there are no adverse affects (and I know there are - teasing by peers in schools, prejudices, etc...), then go for it, let it happen. But if there are adverse affects, then it should not be allowed, or allowed with restrictions against involving children. Just don't polute or misuse the term "marriage" when none really exists. I think what the gay population is really looking for is a legally recognized union ; they don't have to call it marriage.
JetwingX
iWork for Apple <3
As far as I can see, this is a religious/political issue. So what if a homosexual couple wants to get married. I would just let them do it. But if people are really going to make a big fuss I would agree with chemistry geek (aside from having a problem with it and the names) that they should be allowed a form of marriage that would allow them to have the same right as a married couple.
On a side note - Boy do we Californians like to be in the news ! ^_^
On a side note - Boy do we Californians like to be in the news ! ^_^
speedfreak
Registered
This is how webster's sees it
1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
2. The marriage vow or contract. [Obs.] --Chaucer.
3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
4. Any intimate or close union.
Description 4 would apply to the homosexual community. Description 1 is quite specifically geared to the heterosexual community.
chemistry geek - I like the idea of two new words and you logic behind the idea. The english language is based on a large vocabulary with very specific meanings. There is room for a few more.
The root of the modern word marry comes from greek maria referring to the Virgin Mary.
1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
2. The marriage vow or contract. [Obs.] --Chaucer.
3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
4. Any intimate or close union.
Description 4 would apply to the homosexual community. Description 1 is quite specifically geared to the heterosexual community.
chemistry geek - I like the idea of two new words and you logic behind the idea. The english language is based on a large vocabulary with very specific meanings. There is room for a few more.
The root of the modern word marry comes from greek maria referring to the Virgin Mary.
A marriage is actually a legal union, nothing more (at least in the US). Sure, there's religious undertones to some but in all actuality in the states it's a legal union with benefits. Religious or those so-called 'moral' reasons against it should have no bearing what-so-ever on the topic, since they have no legal ground within the US (thankfully).
Therein lies the problem, since specifically excluding same-sex couples would be a direct violation on the constitution and equal protections afforded by it. It would actually boil down to discrimination. It's no better than forcing people with different color skin to sit at the back of the bus or use different stores/restrooms/entrances/etc.
Marriage is a generic term for the most part, and any attempt to specify it such as legaly to a union between a man and woman will meet strong legal challanges by certain groups, who will most likely win those challenges.
To be quite honest, I personally believe that the idea behind 'marraige' is flawed, or at least in the manner people percieve it now a days. I forget the numbers, but it's something like 2/3 of all marriages in the past decade end within 5 years time now. What happened to the 'till death do you part' part? Given that, what is the point of it? Maybe those who are raising such a stink should take some lessons from these alternate lifestyle couples...how to keep a relationship even through severe personal difficulties.
Therein lies the problem, since specifically excluding same-sex couples would be a direct violation on the constitution and equal protections afforded by it. It would actually boil down to discrimination. It's no better than forcing people with different color skin to sit at the back of the bus or use different stores/restrooms/entrances/etc.
Marriage is a generic term for the most part, and any attempt to specify it such as legaly to a union between a man and woman will meet strong legal challanges by certain groups, who will most likely win those challenges.
To be quite honest, I personally believe that the idea behind 'marraige' is flawed, or at least in the manner people percieve it now a days. I forget the numbers, but it's something like 2/3 of all marriages in the past decade end within 5 years time now. What happened to the 'till death do you part' part? Given that, what is the point of it? Maybe those who are raising such a stink should take some lessons from these alternate lifestyle couples...how to keep a relationship even through severe personal difficulties.
chemistry_geek said: