Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 5, 2010 19:33:23 GMT -5
I'm going to take a different stance on Ricky's question. The law was originally written with the only conceived of definition of marriage at the time -- a man and a woman marrying. Nobody even thought of the possibility of gay marriage at that time... nobody questioned it at all. Even the gay people of the time wouldn't at all be shocked or angered at the definition; of course, at the time they were being convinced that their "condition" was some kind of disease or blasphemy or other such nonsense.
Anyway, I ramble. My point is that the law wasn't intended specifically to ban gay marriage -- the law simply never thought about the possibility of it in the first place. So when it was worded "a man and a woman" it wasn't to make sure a man and a man couldn't marry... it was that the thought of such an event never even sprung to mind. It was a total blind spot in their thinking.
That's part of the reason I meant it when I said that Canadians, when the law was changed to allow gay marriage here, thought of it a lot like just fixing a typo. This side of the border it was really treated that way -- "Oh, nobody thought about gays marrying before. Let's fix the wording so that problem is solved."
|
|
|
Post by Dimstow on Mar 5, 2010 20:06:36 GMT -5
I'm going to take a different stance on Ricky's question. The law was originally written with the only conceived of definition of marriage at the time -- a man and a woman marrying. Nobody even thought of the possibility of gay marriage at that time... nobody questioned it at all. Definitely, when Marriage was made legally significant it was such a different world that Gays were just a non-issue. it wasn't like George Washington waltz into the senate floor and stated 'From hence forth Thou Shall not enjoy room decoration!' But we've got to keep in mind that even though the initial legal situations surrounding marriage were NOT meant, or even relevant to, gays at the time, in the last few decades we have definitely made them relevant and I think it's high-time we take a non-hockey-related tip from the Canadians and just correct our typo for the record the hockey thing was a joke <3 Canada
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on Mar 5, 2010 20:11:12 GMT -5
I see no problem with it. I'm actually pretty shocked that it's taking this long for it to be legalized.
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Mar 5, 2010 21:36:27 GMT -5
Going a tad off topic. I would just like to say that this topic is on fire (based on the graphic when you click into this thread)
Flaming Gays....lol
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 5, 2010 21:57:07 GMT -5
Going a tad off topic. I would just like to say that this topic is on fire (based on the graphic when you click into this thread) Flaming Gays....lol Everybody knows homosexuality is hot. And in response to the time issue on marriage laws, homosexuality has been a well known...trait?...for a long time. Heck, half of the Romans and Greeks were gay. However, I agree the laws of marriage were created / indoctrinated without thought of homosexuals. So, time to change them. =P
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 6, 2010 1:20:45 GMT -5
But we've got to keep in mind that even though the initial legal situations surrounding marriage were NOT meant, or even relevant to, gays at the time, in the last few decades we have definitely made them relevant and I think it's high-time we take a non-hockey-related tip from the Canadians and just correct our typo for the record the hockey thing was a joke <3 Canada Yes, despite the original intention of the law, there are definitely people intending to use the existing wording to specifically discriminate against the gays; I certainly won't argue that point. And don't worry about joshing Canadians. Did you catch the olympic closing ceremonies? We poked fun at the torch failure AND had giant inflatable beavers, mounties and flying moose. Strange as it is to say, self depreciating humour is a huge part of our culture; we're pretty hard to offend. XD
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 6, 2010 2:04:17 GMT -5
I understand both sides of the argument, but I'd like to add something to think about to each.
To those who argue that gay marriage is wrong because religion says it's wrong, does that mean that other laws should be affected by religion? What if the laws are affected by a religion that you don't necessarily follow? Would you still agree with the law? Being raised as a Catholic, I understand that the union of marriage is the celebration of the sacrament of holy matrimony (which is SOLELY defined as the union between a man and a woman, unlike the definition of marriage). And should you be a Christian, then I can fully understand (and actually agree with) the reason why this sacrament would be refused to those who are partaking in gay union. But really, though the religion says that the entire concept is wrong, it also says that they should be put to death. Would you want other people to die because of being gay? Surely this is less just then allowing them to wed.
To those who argue that gay marriage should occur because it is a civil liberty, keep in mind that it takes many many years for civil reform to occur. Though I doubt many of us are old enough to think back to the 50's and 60's, keep in mind everything that had to happen to just bring segregation out of schools and public places. While you may argue that marriage is a civil right, you may have to argue for the next 20 years before people agree.
my $0.08
|
|
|
Post by OEBlaze on Mar 6, 2010 2:14:37 GMT -5
...no, it really isn't? Why is it not okay to refer to it as marriage when the gays are involved? How is that not discrimination? I agree, it's just "separate but equal" of the 21st Century. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now. Because separate is NEVER equal. Another thing, is if you allow Gays to marry, they may be able to take care of some of the thousands of children in foster homes. Think of it like this: Your father told you that you're never allowed to get a dog, because it's against your religion. Does that mean your neighbors can't get a dog? NO. They're allowed to do whatever the hell they want! You can tell them that it's against your religion, but that's it. It's YOUR religion, so why should it govern others? Also separation of Church and State. Marriage has STATE benefits, so it should be governed by the STATE, not the church. As for Christian Marriages, did you know that if a woman is married after she loses her virginity, the marriage is not considered valid and the woman is to be stoned to death? It says so in the Bible. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 Final note: If gay marriage is against your religion, don't marry someone of your gender.
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Mar 6, 2010 2:21:49 GMT -5
Even if gay marriage is not legalized, I'm still going to live with my boyfriend. You can't stop us from cohabiting. We're still going to love each other. So what's wrong with allowing us to marry, all receive all the benefits from marriage that you cannot get when you are just serious lovers. It's not like we're going to affect you at all. In fact, we will finally shut up about this, that way you don't have to deal with this stupid argument ever again. It's a win-win!
|
|
|
Post by Dimstow on Mar 6, 2010 3:19:08 GMT -5
Think of it like this: Your father told you that you're never allowed to get a dog, because it's against your religion. Does that mean your neighbors can't get a dog? NO. They're allowed to do whatever the hell they want! You can tell them that it's against your religion, but that's it. It's YOUR religion, so why should it govern others? Also separation of Church and State. Marriage has STATE benefits, so it should be governed by the STATE, not the church. Though the metaphor was a tad overly specific (=P), I have to agree to the point behind it, Gay marriage has been a religious debate for the longevity of it's public debate and the main anti-gay-marriage argument directly contradicts the U.S.'s official separation of church from state. I personally feel that in a religiously free nation we can't make political decisions based on the religious views of ANY religion or denomination. But I ask, as a genuine question, what do we do when the majority of the U.S. public shares a single religion/denomination? assuming we still have a true democratic system can we keep the freedom of religion if more than 51% of our nation is a single religion? or does the ideals set forth in our constitution out way the majority vote?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 6, 2010 4:23:17 GMT -5
It took mere months here in Canada. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 6, 2010 10:44:02 GMT -5
It took mere months here in Canada. Just sayin'. Canada didn't have the same issues in the 50's in 60's though...I think the whole issue might be an American thing anyway
|
|
ElfLady
Planet
I'm a crazy!
Posts: 409
|
Post by ElfLady on Mar 6, 2010 11:21:42 GMT -5
I think that all people agree that "marriage" is a civil liberty, it's just that we disagree on what "marriage" is.
Some people concentrate on the religious aspect, some on the technical aspect. However, at least in America, there is a separation of church and state. Therefore, any argument dealing with the Church is null and void. Any argument. You can get married without the Church. Paul McCartney did it. Johnny Depp did it (he's divorced now, but whatever...). You can do it too. Marriage is, in the government's eyes, a social contract between two people that entitles them to certain benefits (health care, hospital admittance, etc.), and makes any offspring completely legitimate. Therefore, two people who just happen to be of the same gender, should be allowed to make such a contract in the eyes of the state. Whether this contract is made before the eyes of God is irrelevant.
The churches can decide for themselves if they will marry homosexual couples. Chances are, if one such couple wants to be married in a church, it isn't going to be an anti-gay marriage church. Also, some people say that they "don't believe in gay people." Well, that's just fantastic. Maybe I don't believe in Christians. Does that mean I get to make it illegal to form Christian churches? No, because the right to worship freely is protected by our Constitution. Well, so is the right to marry who we will.
Yup, I'm very adamant in my views of this topic.
To lighten the mood up a bit, an excerpt from the play "Angels In America", when the Mormon girl is in a hallucination with Prior: Mormon Housewife: In my church, we don't believe in gay people. Gay Guy In Drag: Well, in *my* church, we don't believe in Mormons. Mormon Housewife: What church do you.... oooooohhhhhh....
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Mar 6, 2010 12:57:38 GMT -5
Even if gay marriage is not legalized, I'm still going to live with my boyfriend. You can't stop us from cohabiting. We're still going to love each other. So what's wrong with allowing us to marry, all receive all the benefits from marriage that you cannot get when you are just serious lovers. It's not like we're going to affect you at all. In fact, we will finally shut up about this, that way you don't have to deal with this stupid argument ever again. It's a win-win! I completely agree with you Zakatak, I seriously don't get why its been an issue for so long in the US. I know its just a matter of time though ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 6, 2010 13:01:08 GMT -5
I found the source of the problem:
Bigotry; brought to you by conspiracy theorists like Glenn Beck.
|
|
|
Post by Dimstow on Mar 6, 2010 14:48:09 GMT -5
"I Believe this case is actually about going into churches and going in and attacking churches and saying 'you can't teach anything else' when you say marriage, civil unions is different, when you say marriage must be defined as this, well then you also have to go into the school, this has already happened!"
I've just to say that, as always, glenn beck doesn't really make a lot of since when he speaks, he jumps around and makes accusations and doesn't really explain himself at all, it's pretty aggravating. (Also, note how his name isn't capitalized, that is not a typo, I don't think he deserves it >_>)
But throughout the clip that Alex posted beck's real accusation is that he and President Obama share the exact same views, and that calling him wrong is the same as calling the President wrong.
And that's disturbing and offencive
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 6, 2010 16:43:53 GMT -5
Beck's accusation is borderline idiotic, the president is an elected man. He makes mistakes, he can be wrong, and sometimes people call him out on it and disagree. It doesn't matter if people disagree with the president, it typically leads to not getting re-elected, and that's ok. But just because he's the president and Beck share's his views, doesn't mean that we lose the right, neigh the responsibility, to disagree with it.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 6, 2010 19:20:57 GMT -5
Beck's accusation is borderline idioticFixed that for ya. Nobody with more than half a wit takes Beck seriously. It's sad enough that as many people watch Fox as do. Ryan (re: it being an American issue): Probably true. ElfLady: My thoughts exactly.
|
|
|
Post by AurAByrooN on Mar 6, 2010 19:57:07 GMT -5
i think it is because of the way homaphobic people act makes poeple who arent realy homaphobic concider gay people less acceptable so if we all just went along and consider gays acceptable it would create far less problems
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on Mar 7, 2010 13:51:29 GMT -5
Christians (like politicians) are like cars, they come in all different shapes sized and colors. But they all have 4 wheels. Christians similarly come in all shapes,sizes and colors but commonly have one God, respect Jesus' teachings and love their neighbors as they love themselves. As I said, there are different types of Christians, one can classify the different types as Liberal and conservative maybe. And thus one can be both gay and Christian. I agree with Gay marriage, and I've been raised in a 100% Christian community where no one is (admittedly ) gay. People should be able to marry whoever they want. But the thing is, this opens itself to other arguments. One which I have been thinking about for quite some time: We have separate restrooms for wo/men, why? To prevent rape, I guess. But now since gay marriage comes into play, and being gay becomes socially and martially acceptable - that would mean that fem/fem harrasment and male/male harrasment could also occur? Well the same way I agree with gay marriage I think we'd have to ditch the separate bathrooms. I have no problem with it, what would you guys think?
|
|