Gay marriage/adoption

Do you believe in aliens?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 62.2%
  • Yes, but not in religious buildings (church, mosque, synagogue)

    Votes: 16 17.8%
  • No

    Votes: 18 20.0%

  • Total voters
    90
I agree with a lot of crux's points. If you want to enter a gay relationship, it's your life, you are responsible. But these unions should not be entered into the definition of marriage just because they happen to live together.
 
Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry if the church does not want them to. And marriage should not exist in the law, only Civil Union.
Alright, but is the latter dependant on the former? What if, like today, plenty of churches were against it, though others were supportive and/or willing to go ahead with a homosexual marriage, and marriage did exist in the law regardless of the religious positions of the people undertaking it? Are you against homosexual marriages performed by Unitarian Universalists, for example? What about heterosexual civil marriages between atheists?

I can definitely understand wanting marriage to be gone in legal terminology, and just leave it as a religious ceremony... but the reality is that we don't live in that sort of world. Civil unions (as far as I'm aware) do not exist for heterosexuals in most countries. Heterosexuals get marriage, regardless of their religious beliefs, unless they choose not to be in one. Civil unions are a (slight) form of second class status meant for homosexuals so as to not upset their heterosexual overlords. It's ridiculous.

I'll never claim that churches should be legally forced into performing a ceremony they don't support... but I should say that if irreligious, sterile heterosexuals have zero problems in getting into a marriage, I see no reason why same sex couples should be denied the same right.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Worth noting that Marriage was originally a legal institution and that religions have no real claim to it beyond the fact that they are empowered by the state to perform various marriage rites and rituals.
 
Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry if the church does not want them to.
Which church? All religions have their own conception of marriage. Unless for some reason the word "marriage" ought to be reserved for mainstream religions exclusively, nothing stops anyone from making up their own religion which allows gay people to marry. Opportunistic religions or sects of Christianity might also try to gain followers by adopting a softer stance.

The only way marriage can really retain its "traditional" meaning is if the state *protects* that meaning. The connotation of the word "marriage" is already shifting, and if the state gets out of it completely, that shift will not slow down, it will accelerate. Not that it's a bad thing, of course!
 
I know this post was a few pages back, but there are things in it that I take issue with that haven't been addressed, sooo
To me as well, marriage isn't between a man and a woman... It's between the couple on one side and the community/society on the other.

It's the agreement of the couple to build a family-- the building block of society; to raise children and, as a building block of society, to perpetuate/continue that society and its culture. It's the promise of the couple to join the society as "full adults" (where the idea of marriage as a coming-of-age ceremony) by agreeing to obey society by building a family that is at the root of it.

In a general sense, it doesn't make sense for homosexuals to marry, because a homosexual relationship unarguably does not do any of the things above. That is, it clearly breaks tradition (at least in the US), breaks society instead of joins it (look at all the conflict surrounding it), and finally... can't produce children.
I respectfully disagree with all of this for several reasons:

1)I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of heterosexual couples getting married don't do it for the benefit of society; they do it for all of the legal benefits THEY get, but primarily they do it because it's supposedly a sign of unwaivering commitment to one another. Ideally, it signifies a lifelong bond, and although there is a 50% divorce rate, almost all people go into marriage thinking it will last.

2) You made a point about gay marriage not being able to produce children. Well, not all straight marriages produce children, either: some straight people are infertile, some just don't want them, etc. Also, with the technology that exists now, it's possible for two lesbians to be artificially inseminated, and it is possible for gay men to get surrogate mothers. Nothing says gay people CAN'T reproduce. But since not reproducing doesn't have any impact on whether straight people should be able to get married, this shouldn't matter to gay people either.

3)Your opposition to it on the grounds of culture and society is kind of bull seeing as our culture has definitely changed a LOT over the years, and gay people are becoming increasingly accepted into our society.The majority of people in America SUPPORT gay marriage, according to a recent gallup poll. In fact, 70% of younger Americans think it should be legal, so once those old farts die off, there will be no reason to oppose it on the grounds that society opposes it.

4) Despite what Catholics and Evangelicals would have you believe, it's not like ALL religions even oppose gay marriage. The church my parents belong to (United Church of Christ) fully supports the idea and is perfectly willing to conduct marriage ceremonies between two men or two women. Unitarians are another sect who do. So it's not like two gay people getting married would violate ALL religious traditions.

5) There was a TON of opposition to interracial marriages 50 years ago, and people thought back then that THAT would break society, but look at us now: we're fine, almost nobody opposes interracial marriage anymore, and the interracial couples that have subsequently been allowed to get married are so much happier now. The same thing will eventually happen if homosexuals are allowed to get married. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. (In fact, gay marriage is LEGAL in my home state of Massachusetts, and society in these two states is doing just fine. In fact, MA is currently doing better than most other states right now)

That said, I agree with you that no religious institution should be FORCED to hold a marriage ceremony between two homosexuals. However, even if one church won't, there are other churches out there who will, and it's stupid not to allow the state to recognize these. It is even stupider for the government to allow civil unions.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I know this post was a few pages back, but there are things in it that I take issue with that haven't been addressed, sooo


I respectfully disagree with all of this for several reasons:

1)I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of heterosexual couples getting married don't do it for the benefit of society; they do it for all of the legal benefits THEY get, but primarily they do it because it's supposedly a sign of unwaivering commitment to one another. Ideally, it signifies a lifelong bond, and although there is a 50% divorce rate, almost all people go into marriage thinking it will last.

Just because heterosexual couple fuck up the intention of marriage, doesn't mean the intention (ideal) is not there.

2) You made a point about gay marriage not being able to produce children. Well, not all straight marriages produce children, either: some straight people are infertile, some just don't want them, etc. Also, with the technology that exists now, it's possible for two lesbians to be artificially inseminated, and it is possible for gay men to get surrogate mothers. Nothing says gay people CAN'T reproduce. But since not reproducing doesn't have any impact on whether straight people should be able to get married, this shouldn't matter to gay people either.

No where did I say that a marriage has to produce children to be meaningful. That's just not the case. The purpose of marriage I outlined above does not of necessity demand children be born-- so this point is moot. Gay couple / infertile couples not having kids has nothing to do with the view of marriage I outlined.

3)Your opposition to it on the grounds of culture and society is kind of bull seeing as our culture has definitely changed a LOT over the years, and gay people are becoming increasingly accepted into our society.The majority of people in America SUPPORT gay marriage, according to a recent gallup poll. In fact, 70% of younger Americans think it should be legal, so once those old farts die off, there will be no reason to oppose it on the grounds that society opposes it.

If you take the time to read the post, it's not a clearly oppositional post, and I even outline that culture changes and that culture that makes no sense should change-- including people's perception/acceptance of gay marriage if it no longer makes sense to be against it. Seriously, even if you start your post with "respectfully" I'm starting to wonder if you even read it-- or if you're just spouting off the typical pro-gay mantra for your own satisfaction.

If you want to address my post-- address it?

4) Despite what Catholics and Evangelicals would have you believe, it's not like ALL religions even oppose gay marriage. The church my parents belong to (United Church of Christ) fully supports the idea and is perfectly willing to conduct marriage ceremonies between two men or two women. Unitarians are another sect who do. So it's not like two gay people getting married would violate ALL religious traditions.

Right but... I didn't say ANYTHING about religion... I'd never make an argument based on it... I'm barely even Christian enough myself considering that I basically ignore half the teachings of the bible (and all these nitty-gritty bullshit points like homosexuality being a sin...). I haven't even talked about my religion at all in this thread...

5) There was a TON of opposition to interracial marriages 50 years ago, and people thought back then that THAT would break society, but look at us now: we're fine, almost nobody opposes interracial marriage anymore, and the interracial couples that have subsequently been allowed to get married are so much happier now. The same thing will eventually happen if homosexuals are allowed to get married. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. (In fact, gay marriage is LEGAL in my home state of Massachusetts, and society in these two states is doing just fine. In fact, MA is currently doing better than most other states right now)

again, not following what this had to do with my post...

That said, I agree with you that no religious institution should be FORCED to hold a marriage ceremony between two homosexuals. However, even if one church won't, there are other churches out there who will, and it's stupid not to allow the state to recognize these. It is even stupider for the government to allow civil unions.

Ah, I'm glad that in the last paragraph you again addressed this post to me-- it was wavering soooooo off topic from what I actually post that I was starting to doubt you were even talking to me but...


read my post again?
edit: Just to clarify, even if a union doesn't have kids-- a good marriage is a value to the community, because it shows what a devoted marriage is, and adds stability to the community. Even without kids, a good marriage with love and devotion is a benefit to other people's children, and good people are always good for a community.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
You can say that she didn't read your post, but maybe you should read your own post Chou, Lantern addressed the implications present in your post, and if it bothers you that the logic of your post implies these things then that is for you to re-examine, not her.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
^or you guys could just be on a pinhair so ready to jump on any vague implication that you can't sit and read an actual post from someone trying to reasonably contemplate on the issue.

wait lol-- it's MY responsibility to write a post YOU can't wildly extrapolate vague implications on?

lol I have to fix vague implications of a post~ that weren't even intended~ that she's extrapolating herself without reading it well~ can I lol more? Sorry Myzozoa that's just silly.

If you're going to say religious damning of homosexuals as argument is an "implication" of a post when I don't believe in it at all religiously, nor believe religion has any place in this argument, and my post definitely stays away from that completely then...

lol sorry but yeah, you're just spouting the typical mantra for your own satisfaction-- that's all I can conclude.
 
i think there's a definite gulf between societal implications that might be considered conservative standards and what people actually think and that's showing up a bit here. i don't mean to sink into the murky swamp of anecdotal reasoning, but i've recently found myself becoming a more conservative thinker and that's clashed extremely with one of my very close friends who happens to be bisexual (although he's mostly attracted to men). so, on political and philosophical principles, i can understand any traditionally conservative post in this topic or something that states "gays don't contribute to society," but i can't physically look my friend in the eye and tell him i believe he doesn't deserve rights i have because "it's better for society". i think that has something to do with chou's post -- yes, there are these extreme definitions of what marriage is and how we as straight or curvy couples correspond, but they almost never match up completely with how people actually think. it's difficult to reconcile straight-and-true political beliefs with actual emotional relationships, and by that rationale, lanturn may have been disagreeing with the conservatively inclined rationale that chou was alluding to in his post but not the post himself (as he obviously didn't completely feel that way [feel free to disagree with me here, just trying to put this slightly in perspective]).

in my opnion, i see it mostly as snorlaxe does, as a moral issue (that it's inherently immoral to deny gays rights especially as they didn't choose to be gay, and i feel the argument of "gays are inherently divisive" as going both ways -- i think an exchange in the last thread on this topic went something like "wherever homosexuals are, litigation against catholic institutions follow" --> "then ban catholic institutions!" i don't see, respectfully, how we can judge either of these things on their merits alone as better or having more of a right to exist, i'm sure an argument could be made that catholicism (or...as lanturn was saying whatever religious sect is actually against homosexuality as the line seems to be getting blurred) perverts society just as much as homosexual relationships do. that's what makes the argument of gays being the common belligerent denominator mostly a moot point in my opinion.
 
@Chou: just to clarify where I believe Lanturn was coming from (not getting into who is right or wrong, I'm just speaking from why I think (s)he said what (s)he did), I believe the point about interracial marriage was brought up in response to this statement by you:

"That is, it clearly breaks tradition (at least in the US), breaks society instead of joins it (look at all the conflict surrounding it)..."

Lanturn was pointing out that interracial marriage was another example of an issue that broke tradition and caused conflict in society, thus arguably breaking it rather than joining it. And yet today I believe at least most people in the US accept it without too much thought (to be sure there are still people who oppose it, but I don't think they're a significant portion of the population... or maybe that's just me being idealistic).

While interracial marriage may not directly be the issue in discussion here, I believe Lanturn brought it up as a rebuttal to the quoted points you made above, trying to show that just because something breaks tradition and at some point causes conflict does not mean it is necessarily something that will cause lasting damage to society (though I may be biased in thinking that interracial marriage is acceptable in that I am the product of such a union).
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
^As are the vast majority of Black Americans and many many White Americans-- they just don't acknowledge it.

My deal would just be that I acknowledged that culture that makes no sense should change.

Rather, my post says in this order:

-Part of the purpose of marriage is respecting society and the community.

- Thus, that extends to its tradition/culture as well, and gay marriage now clashes badly with tradition/culture and the feelings of many in society.

-However, culture that makes no sense should be changed...

-Being anti-gay marriage makes no sense, so the culture and traditions should change to accomadate...

-Unfortunately this takes time, and you can't force it on people (in regards to tradition, not law-- law we should force what's right).

This wasn't a thesis paper, I wasn't outlining an argument-- I was taking the reader through the steps of my own thoughts on the subject. If you didn't read through it and understand the main points of the thought flow... better to not respond...

Lanturn is free to make the points she did in this thread without nonsensically addressing them to me.
 
Chou, I went back and read your entire post again (to note this is a combination of addressing your points and my own thoughts on the matter; I just used your post as a springboard). I think the idea of marriage being a commitment not just to one's partner but to society and the community is a very interesting point of view, and one I confess I haven't thought about before (probably in part because I've never been considering marriage all that seriously at any point in my life so far). And while idealistically I think it's a nice way of thinking about things, I'm not sure how many people actually see marriage as about the community rather than just as a manifestation of their love and devotion for their partner.

I don't think the community at large thinks about each and every marriage and whether or not they approve of it and acknowledge it. And it seems weird to me that a community would have veto power over marriages? Like "oh sorry we voted on your marriage and we don't like it so even though you are upstanding citizens who are deeply in love you can't get married." I know that's not what you meant, it's just kind of how the idea of a marriage only being valid with community acceptance strikes me. And yes I know that's a bit of an exagerration. It's just the feeling I get, just as you are left with the feeling that gay marriage is something you can't bring yourself to approve of.

I think you're right that culture takes time to change. And ideally of course I would like for everyone to just be in a mindset where they are comfortable with and accepting of gay marriage (or civil unions or whatever). But then I suppose I wonder do we wait till that point before changing the law so that it is acknowledged by the community? Or is the point of law to help force culture to change? I think both these methods have been used in the past (I don't have a good example of the former; the abolishment of slavery of course would fall into the latter category), but which one is right here? I tend to lean towards the latter, but I understand what you are saying about people being forced to acknowledge and accept something (and how it's most definitely not ideal).

But can we really please all parties? Is it fair to ask people to wait till culture changes? And how many people have to accept something before it's considered okay to force the rest of society to go along? I mean there are still parents who end up really opposed to whom their kids marry today, but we don't let that stop the marriages even though they are some of the most directly involved parties.

I try to be pretty open-minded about things, so while I do believe some sort of legally binding union between gay couples should be allowed (I like the idea of civil unions for all couples regardless of composition and then marriage ceremonies may be selectively performed by churches that choose to do so), but as for all the details of how to bring this about in the best way possible, I don't really know. I feel like potentially the same people fussing about gay marriage would throw up a fuss if marriage in the legal sense were renamed to civil union. But I could be wrong. I just don't know.
 

Nastyjungle

JACKED and sassy
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
i really don't know what kind of place you live in chou or if you are really devoted to your "community" or something, but you are seriously clouded and misguided if you think most people care about what your idea of marriage commitments are, and that communities could give less of a shit about what you're doing and likewise most people don't really care about their communities (i certainly don't)

likewise you seem pretty rooted into your idea of maintaining culture and tradition (which are both pretty toxic things as a whole in my personal opinion but I won't go into that) but you have to realize that not everybody is like that and not everybody cares
just because you have big tradition ties and think marriage has commitment in those things doesnt mean you should try and make other people find those same ties if they dont

It's the agreement of the couple to build a family-- the building block of society; to raise children and, as a building block of society, to perpetuate/continue that society and its culture. It's the promise of the couple to join the society as "full adults" (where the idea of marriage as a coming-of-age ceremony) by agreeing to obey society by building a family that is at the root of it.
who decided that this is the agreement of a marriage? as far as I was aware it was a commitment between two people to be together, and absolutely nothing else
literally, anything else you think marriage is about is a personal opinion
its not an agreement to do any of the things you listed unless you feel like doing them

Whether you're gay or straight, marriage isn't something you do out of selfishness or your own sense of entitlement. Marriage is only meaningful with dedication to the family, and the blessings of the community.
again, lots of opinions, see before

Whether you are gay, or straight, it matters not-- marriage is not between two people, it is between the couple on one side, and the community on the other.

Marriage has meaning only because of love, acceptance, and the good wishes of the community for a couple, and belief in the couple. Whether you are gay or straight, marriage is the formation of family, and joining the community. A marriage that parties are forced to not only accept, but acknowledge... that cannot possibly make anyone happy...
wow you sure do like to think your personal opinions are the ones which everybody does/should live by

people need to get over the idea of controlling what other people do and that what one person finds personally wrong doesn't mean jack shit as far as what other people do

if you think that marriage means community and family, then good for you, make your marriage about that

dont try and say that it is what it should be by law what people follow because not everybody feels the same way you do
 

DM

Ce soir, on va danser.
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
government and religion are seperate, the end

this isn't even a debate, that's the way it is.
Incorrect. I think you, just like so many others in this country, misunderstand the meaning of the First Amendment.

Dat First Amendment said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That's it, that's the whole relevant part. Taking this as two distinct clauses, this is what it means: (1) Congress shall not establish one religion as the "official" religion of the US to be worshiped over all others, and (2) Congress shall not make it illegal to be a follower of any religion. Over time, the specific meaning of each clause has been meticulously (and not so meticulously) defined by the Supreme Court, but in no way, shape, or form does the First Amendment clearly declare that church and state must be separate.

Furthermore, it is literally impossible to fully separate church and state. Say one person believes gay marriages shouldn't be allowed because the Bible told them so, and another person believes gay marriages shouldn't be allowed because, even though they were raised in a secular home, they just hate gay people. Does the existence of religion in the formation of one person's opinion automatically make it more or less worthwhile than the other's? No, it does not.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
ChildDaemon-- I first wish to say that I find myself enjoying every one of your posts in these recent threads. It's surely a pleasure discussing with you.

Chou, I went back and read your entire post again (to note this is a combination of addressing your points and my own thoughts on the matter; I just used your post as a springboard). I think the idea of marriage being a commitment not just to one's partner but to society and the community is a very interesting point of view, and one I confess I haven't thought about before (probably in part because I've never been considering marriage all that seriously at any point in my life so far). And while idealistically I think it's a nice way of thinking about things, I'm not sure how many people actually see marriage as about the community rather than just as a manifestation of their love and devotion for their partner.

I don't think the community at large thinks about each and every marriage and whether or not they approve of it and acknowledge it. And it seems weird to me that a community would have veto power over marriages? Like "oh sorry we voted on your marriage and we don't like it so even though you are upstanding citizens who are deeply in love you can't get married." I know that's not what you meant, it's just kind of how the idea of a marriage only being valid with community acceptance strikes me. And yes I know that's a bit of an exagerration. It's just the feeling I get, just as you are left with the feeling that gay marriage is something you can't bring yourself to approve of.
I just attended the elementary school graduation ceremony for my village, here in Japan. It's very different from a graduation ceremony in America, where everyone laughs, throws hats, and students are "glad it's over~"

In Japan, students mostly cry, as they recollect the nostalgic days spent with their friends and loved ones growing up. Whether you laugh or cry though, one thing that rings through at a graduation ceremony is: thanks

Arigatou, arigatou, arigatou, arigatou...

Deep thanks, for friends, parents loved ones... everyone who raised on to this point. To the community that supported you, to teachers who taught you, to the friends who played with you, and to the parents and family that raised you. I think these feelings of thanks are especially pronounced in Japan, and truly beautiful.

Why did I babble on about this? It's because Marriage is in many ways, the last coming of age ceremony-- a chain following elementary school graduation, middle school graduation, highschool, graduation, and in Japan-- seijinshiki (coming of age ceremony). While western culture has often lost site of Marriage as this role, you will find that even in our western culture, this rings true. Songs like butterfly kisses for instance. A father giving away his daughter. Words of congratulations. The words of a priest.

All these are symbols of the support families, friends, church-- the community at large.

Marriage is the last coming of age ceremony, where one emerges from being the child of one household, by becoming the parent of another. A father giving away his daughter represents sending her to be under another household, but it also represents his acknowledgment for her as a woman. It is undeniable that in western culture too, people care a lot that their parents and friends acknowledge and celebrate their marriage. Look at Romeo and Juliet (probably a bad example, be eh).

It's easy to say, asian culture and filial piety-- they're full of it. It's terrible for selfish parents to not accept anything and everything their child chooses to do with their own lives.

But think carefully on all the trials and struggle of growing up, all the support and strength lent to a child. Today, the words of faith, trust, and strength from the village head (mayor) to the graduating class were truly awe inspiring-- and the children in turn cried and bowed in gratitude of his kind yet strict words. Have you heard the expression, "It takes a village to raise a child." Individuals are so powerless. It's so easy for us as individuals to selfishly lose sight of the fact that without collective community, we really are powerless and weak. It's so easy for people to forget gratitude, and not think of 恩 (on, debt). For those fortunate to grow up in a good house and community, is it so wrong to shoulder some of the expectations, and live with gratefulness for the gift of your own upbringing?

I think it's because both parent and child forget this so often in the west that there are so many divided or broken homes.

Recently, a cousin of mine, so close I love her like a sibling, got married. But, in her marriage, she and her husband were resolute in not inviting my grandmother and her own brother to their legal oath-taking because her husbands siblings couldn't be there so it wouldn't "be fair." This act of selfishness outraged the entire family. All the years her brother looked over her, all the days or all the years my grandmother cared for her in her own home... this single outrageous act of selfishness threw the entire clan in disarray... everyone was outrage, my grandmother was heartbroken, as was everyone.

No one could understand how she could so hell bent on having "my marriage my way," that she could treat grandma that way-- when she had almost grown up in Grandma's house as much as her own. Her kind house was the hub of the clan, and her grandchildren had grown up like siblings.

Her father was furious-- the wedding ceremony was canceled, because the entire clan was too upset to attend. No one acknowledged her wedding, and her husband--who was the source of this problem--ended up having to beg for forgiveness on deaf ears. He only did so selfishly when his own life would be ruined by dealing with a depressed and crying wife-- you see, family was central to her life, and spending thanksgiving, christmas, and new years alone, and also separated from the weekly get-togethers at grandma's house-- she was miserable and crying every night. Only when he had to deal with her sadness did he realize he was in the wrong.

All this happened because of the attitude, "it's my wedding and I can do what I want."

It happened because "We're family, and everyone will forgive me."

It happened because, they have clearly not grown up-- are still spoiled brats-- and no one, could acknowledge them as adults.

I have believed from long before that Marriage was about community as much as it is about love. When my cousin's selfish, childish behavior destroyed a foundation built on years of love and trust, it became more apparent to me than ever that I had been right. The wedding was for the community.

In the past, families really did have control of their children's marriages. But we keep ceremony, just like elementary, middle, and high school graduation ceremonies. The purpose of these is to reflect on years of effort, of togetherness, and growing up.

It's also an opportunity to express gratitude, and for the child to appreciate the family and community.

For the community and family to express pride and belief in the child.


...a wedding that people don't approve of, can only make an unhappy home.


It's because people forget marriage is bigger than oneself, and forget gratitude, that selfishness leads to broken households.

Perhaps if we divorce marriage completely from tax benefits and visitation rights--making those linked to civil unions instead, that people will remember what marriage is supposed to be about.







There's so much more I want to say and respond to, but this is all I can manage right now. Get back soon.
 
That's it, that's the whole relevant part. Taking this as two distinct clauses, this is what it means: (1) Congress shall not establish one religion as the "official" religion of the US to be worshiped over all others, and (2) Congress shall not make it illegal to be a follower of any religion. Over time, the specific meaning of each clause has been meticulously (and not so meticulously) defined by the Supreme Court, but in no way, shape, or form does the First Amendment clearly declare that church and state must be separate.

Furthermore, it is literally impossible to fully separate church and state. Say one person believes gay marriages shouldn't be allowed because the Bible told them so, and another person believes gay marriages shouldn't be allowed because, even though they were raised in a secular home, they just hate gay people. Does the existence of religion in the formation of one person's opinion automatically make it more or less worthwhile than the other's? No, it does not.
Really? It's incorrect just because it doesn't follow YOUR interpretation of it? Sorry, you are not the judicial branch. You don't get to interpret the constitution. Anybody can take a phrase and then subjectively change the words to make it mean whatever they want. Not impressed.

Furthermore, I don't think popemobile's statement was even referring to separation of church and state. He was simply stating that religion has nothing to do with a civil marriage. If a couple of people get a civil marriage, religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter what Christians, Muslims or Pastafarians think. The fact that people argue against gay marriage because of religion is complete bullshit. Mainly because religion has NOTHING to do with marriage. Marriage PREDATES religion (Christianity at least). Marriage was initially used to create alliances between families and things of that nature.
 

DM

Ce soir, on va danser.
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
Really? It's incorrect just because it doesn't follow YOUR interpretation of it? Sorry, you are not the judicial branch. You don't get to interpret the constitution. Anybody can take a phrase and then subjectively change the words to make it mean whatever they want. Not impressed.
Not trying to impress, and that's not my interpretation per se. That was what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution, and the Supreme Court cases reflect that fact. And no, I'm not the judicial branch, I've just spent the last 3 years of my life reading their self-important garbage, so I'd say I know something about the subject.

Furthermore, I don't think popemobile's statement was even referring to separation of church and state. He was simply stating that religion has nothing to do with a civil marriage. If a couple of people get a civil marriage, religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter what Christians, Muslims or Pastafarians think. The fact that people argue against gay marriage because of religion is complete bullshit. Mainly because religion has NOTHING to do with marriage. Marriage PREDATES religion (Christianity at least). Marriage was initially used to create alliances between families and things of that nature.
Maybe that's not what pope meant, but taking his post at face value, that's what he said. I'm not trying to read deeper into posts, I react to what I see. And if it isn't what he meant to say, I'm sure there are people out there who were thinking it anyway, and it does no harm to set them straight.

And I don't disagree with a single thing you said, but none of it addresses the question I posed.
 
I'll answer your question then. No. It doesn't matter. People can use whatever belief they have to support an argument as long as it is logical and makes sense. That is irrelevant to the argument though. People are using religion in the argument stating that marriage is a religious ceremony, therefore gay people cannot get married. The logical argument is that marriage has nothing to do with religion, therefore gay people can get married.

Also, I'd love to argue some more about the US constitution, but I will just derail the shit out of this thread if I do that, so I'll save it for another day!
 
Chou, I want to thank you as well for the interesting discussion points you bring up. And I also want to thank you because I feel you genuinely read and think about what I write, considering my viewpoint even though it clashes with your own. While I may not change your mind and you may not change mine, I do appreciate your thoughtfullness and your help in seeing things from a different perspective.

The picture you paint of community and family and thankfulness is something truly beautiful and moving. It's something I wish the world today had more of. And I think if it did, I might be able to wholeheartedly agree with your viewpoint. But unfortunately I feel like the world doesn't work this way always (as you yourself acknowledged... and perhaps it should, but then that's another cultural shift that again I don't know how to bring about).

I think in all things there needs to be a balance. In the situation of your cousin's wedding, family was of such a critical importance that the slight of not inviting certain relatives cause possibly irreperable harm to the relationships both between the spouses and among the family and in-laws.

But I don't think it is fair to completely dismiss out of hand the husband as being selfish and uncaring until his wife became depressed. It is possible that he genuinely did not realize the import his actions would have. After all, not everyone grows up nowadays with such a tightly knit family, much less an extended family such as the one you described. He may have grown up in such a household and not meant such an offense to his future in-laws. I feel that as part of joining their family to his, the wife's family should perhaps not react so violently either and be willing to give him another chance, to educate him on why they reacted so strongly rather than shunning him for a mistake that, while to them an unthinkable insult, to him might have seemed a trivial matter of convenience. I find it highly unlikely he intentionally wished to create a bad relationship with his in-laws.

Perhaps also because marriage marks some sort of seperation from family, this causes people to think they can do "whatever they want." This first taste of establishing their own family, their own rules to live by, may make it such that they aren't entirely thinking of what has come before. Not to say that it is okay to be ungrateful or that this is an excuse for actively hurting those close to you, but perhaps an explanation.

I also would say that viewing marriage as a coming of age ceremony strikes me as a bit strange. As you yourself mentioned, people who are not truly mature can still get married. And people much more mature may choose never to marry (either because they never find the right person or for other personal reasons). I don't think that necessarily means they are any less their own purpose. This is really just a tangential note that is not entirely related to the discussion at hand, I just wanted to throw it out there.

And getting back to the issue of balance, while I feel that you are right and you probably cannot/should not entirely exclude the community from influencing marriage, I don't think it should be such a driving force as to surpass all else either. I do not think it is fair for a loving couple to have to put their families and the community above all else in their relationship.

I was just reading an article about a woman who was being pressured by her mother to invite a cousin to her wedding. Said cousin had abused her when she was a small child, and though she had been able to deal with this on her own and moved on, she had not told anyone what had happened to her. Should she succumb to her family's wishes to invite the cousin? Should she resist? Should she fess up to what happened and then have to deal with the fallout as her wedding changes from the happiest day of her life to a gossip fest/pity party? (For the full article, see here)

I wonder... Should the community be prioritized over love? Over the feelings of the married couple? What is the right ratio here? I presume we can agree that loveless, arranged marriages are also not truly what marriage is supposed to be. And should children not marry just because their parents oppose it as in Romeo and Juliet? What if the family approves of the marriage (for example a homosexual marriage) but the extended community does not?

And while we're at it, does marriage (in the US especially, but elsewhere as well... I just don't have as much knowledge about other countries' practices to feel comfortable generalizing) still even mean what it is you want it to mean? I believe at some point marriage most certainly did mean that, but I'm not convinced it does now. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't make sense to use that as a starting point to build off of.

You could use the situation today and argue we should return to those values; you can start from the situation today and argue for gay marriage, but no matter what your beliefs you have to start with what is real now (unfortunately... I am much more comfortable in the world of the theoretical and idealistic which is why I am unable to present any actual solutions to how to bring about change). I only express my opinion with the disclaimer that while I try to stay informed, I do not know anything and still have much to learn about the world. I can only try to listen, to keep an open mind, to articulate my viewpoint clearly and hope that others do the same.
 
I'd be lying if I liked the idea of gay marriage. I've always believed that marriage was strictly a union between a man and a woman, and that a family should have a father and mother. It may be because of the conditions I was raised in, but that's what I believe.

That said, there really isn't a good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married or adopt. Any argument I've seen generally boils down to "It's just wrong", which really isn't a good enough reason imo.

So I guess you could say I'm not for gay marriage/adoption but not against it either. It may not be something I like but in terms as to whether they should be able to do it, I think they absolutely should.
 

ghost

formerly goldenghost
is a Site Content Manageris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
LC Leader
Not to intrude upon this discussion but ultimately, as long as a marriage is a legal concept and condition that is a designated prerequisite for other legal rights, gay marriage must be accepted, at least in the United States. There is not even a need to bring religion or cultural values into the discussion (although these two items do not necessarily always oppose gay marriage) as long as marriage is the law of a secular state.
 

Crux

Banned deucer.
Which church? All religions have their own conception of marriage. Unless for some reason the word "marriage" ought to be reserved for mainstream religions exclusively, nothing stops anyone from making up their own religion which allows gay people to marry. Opportunistic religions or sects of Christianity might also try to gain followers by adopting a softer stance.

The only way marriage can really retain its "traditional" meaning is if the state *protects* that meaning. The connotation of the word "marriage" is already shifting, and if the state gets out of it completely, that shift will not slow down, it will accelerate. Not that it's a bad thing, of course!
I live in Australia, whose politics and view of the world (and marriage) is dominated by Christianity, Catholicism in particular. This is the view that my post is coming from, as Australia has this religious connotation of marriage that will never be lost, and from what I have seen and understand America is the same.

The stance a religion takes I feel is irrelevant, as marriage is (to Australians) a religious concept, and should not exist in the law. Religions can do whatever they want and you are right in that softening the stance they take on the issue a religion is likely to attract more followers. Of course, this is largely unimportant, as the connotations of marriage and "marriage" as it is seen in Australia are the largest problem that I have with gay unions.
 
Crux, I feel like you must live in a different Australia to me, because in my experience, religion has shit all to do with marriage here and whether people choose to get involved with it. This country is really irreligious compared to the US, so I'm not really sure how they could be seen as similar. One of my inlaws was a marriage celebrant and I used to help her out with a lot of her ceremonies, while religion wasn't an entirely uncommon theme, it definitely wasn't the be all and end all of it. Maybe where you live has something to do with it?

Edit: I should probably elaborate. When I say religion wasn't an uncommon theme, I mean God might've been mentioned once during the ceremonies that bothered to mention him. It was a relatively small part of it. Granted, another important thing to note that civil marriages make up the majority of marriages performed in this country (67% in 2009, according to this government website), and yeah, she was a civil celebrant. Our differences in opinion might just be based on different friends/family/culture or what have you, I can't even remember the last time I went to a religious marriage ceremony.
 
Chou, I am aware that the acceptance of the community when concerning marriage is important to you, but you're forgetting (or should I say knowingly refraining) to acknowledge that there are many people who accept gay marriage just as much as they do heterosexual marriage. You act as though a select group of people refusing to respect a homosexual marriage makes it pointless. You are just eloquently reflecting your self-important beliefs onto the rest of society so you can somehow justify them.
 
I'm just concerned with the child. I have 2 children and I always want the best place for them...
There's only a problem for the children because "society" doesn't accept the whole gay parenting thing. But society won't change until it becomes more normal for same-sex couples to have children. There's one very obvious answer, the only reason developed countries aren't taking it is the usual fear of religious nutcase voters.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top