|
Scott
|
 |
« on: October 13, 2008, 09:06:16 AM » |
|
A friend brought up an interesting point yesterday-
Because it is based on individual religious standards, the government should not control 'marriage,' but instead control 'civil unions' for all.
That is to say, marriage should be dictated by the individual religion, not the government. Civil unions should be the governing factor in terms of rights, tax breaks, etc.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2008, 07:06:41 PM » |
|
i have actually always thought that the term 'marriage' is an example of church creeping into state. all 'marriages' really are just civil unions (in fact, those performed in court are often referred to as 'civil ceremonies') with a fancied-up religious title.
i don't see how two committed people in love should be denied rights based on their gender; to me, that has no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
The Sleeper
Jr. Member
Karma: 3
 Offline
Posts: 76
Directive?
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2008, 11:46:17 AM » |
|
Good question. I don't know.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Okay, woke to a grocery list...
Goes like this:
Duty and death.
-Aesop Rock
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2008, 11:47:08 AM » |
|
Good question. I don't know. You might not know but what do you think? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
The Sleeper
Jr. Member
Karma: 3
Offline
Posts: 76
Directive?
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2008, 11:52:57 AM » |
|
Good question. I don't know. You might not know but what do you think? It's a difficult issue. To what extent should the government be involved? Only as far as, I think, preventing outright discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Okay, woke to a grocery list...
Goes like this:
Duty and death.
-Aesop Rock
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2008, 12:07:00 PM » |
|
Good question. I don't know. You might not know but what do you think? It's a difficult issue. To what extent should the government be involved? Only as far as, I think, preventing outright discrimination. Well, sure, but that has nothing to do with marriage as it's currently defined. The question is whether it should be defined at all by the government. If there is a separate title entirely for people who wish to be joined in a federally-recognized union, why wouldn't we go with that instead of using the name that offends so many religious people? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
The Sleeper
Jr. Member
Karma: 3
Offline
Posts: 76
Directive?
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2008, 12:19:29 PM » |
|
Good question. I don't know. You might not know but what do you think? It's a difficult issue. To what extent should the government be involved? Only as far as, I think, preventing outright discrimination. Well, sure, but that has nothing to do with marriage as it's currently defined. The question is whether it should be defined at all by the government. If there is a separate title entirely for people who wish to be joined in a federally-recognized union, why wouldn't we go with that instead of using the name that offends so many religious people? Most gay people I know are offended that they CAN'T be married. They consider it an insult. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Okay, woke to a grocery list...
Goes like this:
Duty and death.
-Aesop Rock
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2008, 12:40:45 PM » |
|
Good question. I don't know. You might not know but what do you think? It's a difficult issue. To what extent should the government be involved? Only as far as, I think, preventing outright discrimination. Well, sure, but that has nothing to do with marriage as it's currently defined. The question is whether it should be defined at all by the government. If there is a separate title entirely for people who wish to be joined in a federally-recognized union, why wouldn't we go with that instead of using the name that offends so many religious people? Most gay people I know are offended that they CAN'T be married. They consider it an insult. Well, there's a definite line to be clarified here. There are those that are offended that the church won't recognize a marriage and those that are offended that the state won't recognize their marriage. Those that are offended by the church have no ground. However, those that are offended by the governmental discrimination are right to do so. Why tax benefits, health benefits, visitation rights, etc. are tied in directly with a religious entity is a mystery to me. Perhaps because it wasn't an issue before? If we can't please both, we should break it up with the most logical solution, right? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
The Sleeper
Jr. Member
Karma: 3
Offline
Posts: 76
Directive?
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2008, 12:51:16 PM » |
|
Good question. I don't know. You might not know but what do you think? It's a difficult issue. To what extent should the government be involved? Only as far as, I think, preventing outright discrimination. Well, sure, but that has nothing to do with marriage as it's currently defined. The question is whether it should be defined at all by the government. If there is a separate title entirely for people who wish to be joined in a federally-recognized union, why wouldn't we go with that instead of using the name that offends so many religious people? Most gay people I know are offended that they CAN'T be married. They consider it an insult. Well, there's a definite line to be clarified here. There are those that are offended that the church won't recognize a marriage and those that are offended that the state won't recognize their marriage. Those that are offended by the church have no ground. However, those that are offended by the governmental discrimination are right to do so. Why tax benefits, health benefits, visitation rights, etc. are tied in directly with a religious entity is a mystery to me. Perhaps because it wasn't an issue before? If we can't please both, we should break it up with the most logical solution, right? That's how I feel personally...compromise...but many of my gay friends would not feel the same way. They would bring up marriage between people of separate races. People tried to use the bible to justify discriminating against interracial couples. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Okay, woke to a grocery list...
Goes like this:
Duty and death.
-Aesop Rock
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2008, 02:24:20 PM » |
|
Good question. I don't know. You might not know but what do you think? It's a difficult issue. To what extent should the government be involved? Only as far as, I think, preventing outright discrimination. Well, sure, but that has nothing to do with marriage as it's currently defined. The question is whether it should be defined at all by the government. If there is a separate title entirely for people who wish to be joined in a federally-recognized union, why wouldn't we go with that instead of using the name that offends so many religious people? Most gay people I know are offended that they CAN'T be married. They consider it an insult. Well, there's a definite line to be clarified here. There are those that are offended that the church won't recognize a marriage and those that are offended that the state won't recognize their marriage. Those that are offended by the church have no ground. However, those that are offended by the governmental discrimination are right to do so. Why tax benefits, health benefits, visitation rights, etc. are tied in directly with a religious entity is a mystery to me. Perhaps because it wasn't an issue before? If we can't please both, we should break it up with the most logical solution, right? That's how I feel personally...compromise...but many of my gay friends would not feel the same way. They would bring up marriage between people of separate races. People tried to use the bible to justify discriminating against interracial couples. Tried and failed. With gay people, there's specific reference in the bible to homosexuality as an 'abomination.' It's hard to argue with that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
