So, you think infertile people should not marry?.
FRODO,
thats a line from Monty Python’s Life of Brian. They argue whether Stan has the right to have a baby. The fact that he can’t(and thats not even the Roman’s fault) is not as important as his right to have one. “its symbolic of our fight against the oppression of the Romans”
nevermind.
Spiny Norman,
yes, but also define the responsibilities instead of just referring to another relationship (marriage).
**justinh wrote:
I am just stating what my definitions are. Now where I got them could be a good point of debate. But the fact that they are my definitions is not debateable.**
Arguing what your definitions are isn’t what we’re debating here. How applicable they are to society at large is the point, I think.
I would argue that it is the definition of a majority of our society.
Could you provide a citation for that? Even if the majority of people DID believe this to be true, would that make it right? To give an example, the majority of people in this country, before 1860, believed that black people shouldn’t have basic civil rights, they were thought of as property. Just because the majority believes it doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
What I am saying is that there should be another legal term defined to recognize the union. That should please everybody, since it could be defined to address the particulars of the arrangement.
Ah, separate but equal? Where have I heard that term before? :rolleyes:
Although it probably doesn’t apply, I believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman that “no man can break apart”.
justinh, implicit within this statement is the idea that the main/only reason for marriage is for procreation. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, men and women only look at each other as breeding stock.
What about LOVE? Cannot two people come together and form an emotional bond and decide they want to spend their lives together? Isn’t that the basis of marriage? Or do you simply look at women for their child-bearing capabilities? Be careful how you answer that! 
OUCH!, once again my Monty Python’s illiteracy makes me look like a fool, sorry justinh.
is should get my hands on something from this guys…ASAP.
I take it the point of the exercise is to give same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. Your suggestion doesn’t really sound like equal treatment to me.
Besides, there’s a thousand-plus laws that mention marriage, if I understand it correctly. Are you going to modify each of those laws, or are you going to mention each in the new “registered partnership” law ?
S. Norman
Justin:
Yep. Seems to me I recall something about Vermont doing precisely that. And a campaign among people who feel as you do (see next quote) to “Take Back Vermont” by rescinding that permission.
So much for “same thing with a different name.”
You certainly have a right to your opinion, and I respect that. Two points to make here: (1) Such a view is nearly always, and I’d venture to say, knowing your beliefs, definitely is in your case, founded on religious views of marriage. To what extent do you feel your religious views should cover what civil society does? (2) Given that, and the fact that people have same-sex orientation not by choice and effectively unchangeably, what is their option? How can they enter into such a union?
Interesting. Stan is not describing a methodology; he’s expressing a feeling – one contrary to biological possibility, to be sure, but still a feeling. Obviously, he can adopt (assuming the laws permit). He can opt for a surrogate mother.
But why do you assume that children are the sole goal of marriage? Are you planning to live with your wife (since divorce is sinful) celibately (since the purpose of sex is procreation) effective when she reaches menopause? Or are there other answers that are more meaningful?
And another question…why do you think your religious views should govern and not mine - which support gay marriage?
As do mine. Good point, Dangerosa.
However, I attempted to keep it on a non-personality basis, since Justin can usually do a fine job of debating from his issues if not personally attacked in the process.
It strikes me that the only civil thing to do is to divorce (no pun intended) the question of what constitutes a valid legal marriage from what a given faith’s requirements for a marriage might be.
I’m confident that Tom~ and the U.S. Catholic hierarchy have no problems with identifying as “validly married” persons who have not complied with the requirements imposed by the Catholic Church for the excellent reason that they themselves (those persons) are not Catholic. First cousins, for example, or divorced persons who have remarried.
We may need to answer what the purpose of civil recognition of a marriage is supposed to be, in order to come to some mutual understanding of whether gay marriages should be legalized. Clearly Justin and I have quite different conceptions of what a marriage is supposed to be, despite our common religion.
I did mean that your in a non-specific sense (i.e. religion other than mine) rather than a personal attack on Justin’s faith.
Justin, my apologies if that wasn’t clear.
I think the only reason why gay-marriage isn’t legal is because of people’s religious beleifs. Be it we like it or not, it’s true that most people are christian or muslim. I don’t know how muslims feel about homosexuality, but as i see it, most christians don’t look kindly on it. I don’t think this issue will be resolved until there is complete and un-questionable seperation of church and state, which will probably never happen. I mean, just look at our president now.
He pulled a Dave!
Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!
~And I know I wasn’t right, but it felt so good… -Better Than Ezra
I liken this debate to the divorce debate among orthodox Catholics and Jews. The main question to that debate is whether marriage is a sacrament or not, and can it be broken for convenience (my secretary is better looking and younger than my wife) or safety (my husband abuses me). That is my point about removing the “marriage” function out of the equation.
Can you put Joe down as your beneficiary for your life insurance, medical dependent, emergency contact, co signer of a loan? well yes. Are you married to Joe? No.
**justinh wrote:
I liken this debate to the divorce debate among orthodox Catholics and Jews. The main question to that debate is whether marriage is a sacrament or not, and can it be broken for convenience (my secretary is better looking and younger than my wife) or safety (my husband abuses me). That is my point about removing the “marriage” function out of the equation.**
The problem with this is that there is a CIVIL component to marriage as well as a religious one. And, what if your religion has no problem with same-sex couples marrying, such as in Wicca (most Covens, I believe) or some segments of Reformed Judeism? If your faith allows and approves of such ceremonies, then why are they not recognized by the government? Isn’t that breaching the separation between Church and State? The government is recognizing marriages of one religion, but not another.
Since most Christian denominations don’t recognize same-sex marriage, well, I’ll not be married in a Christian ceremony. That’s fine by me, I’m not Christian. But that shouldn’t be government policy, in other words, only the Christian definition of marriage is recognized.
As an aside, does anyone know what religions do sanction gay marriages?
Unitarian Universalists.
From religioustolerance.org:
Central Conference of American Rabbis
California Council of Churches
Pacific Congress of Quakers
Unitarian Universalist Association,
United Church of Religious Science
United Church of Christ
United Church of Canada
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.
Episcopalians and Lutherns are currently battling this one (and gay ordination) out - both groups are expecting a knock down drag out fight with a possible schism.
This makes a lawyer in me very, very happy - we get to draft many, many complex contracts covering all aspects of a couple’s life together, to cover all the aspects of life that are already dealt with by the statutes and common law governing marriage. We get to charge fees to copy work that’s been already been done over the past several centuries.
But, in any event, not all rights attributed to marriage can be duplicated in contract. An absolutely huge one is tenancy by the entireties. Tenancy by the entireties is the way married couples jointly own their home or other property. Under this, the property is indivisible - one of the couple cannot sell his/her interest in the house out from under the other spouse. Tenancy by the entirities is limited under law only to married couples.
Sua
Tenancy by the entireties also only exists in a handful of states, Sua. IIRC, the most frequently cited case is from Hawaii.
As Polycarp pointed out earlier… does the State recognize Joe as the person that has the right to decide to pull the plug on your comatose self, regardless what your father wants? As the person who gets to decide where and how you will be buried regardless of what your mother wants? As the person who, if you die without a will, keeps the house, regardless what your brother wants? Because in too many jurisdictions, it DOES NOT matter what your actions indicated in life, even if you left it in writing, if you’re not in a recognized “marriage” then only “blood” relations are considered your next-of-kin, and the person you loved all your life can be cut out altogether by your “natural” family.
You come up with a Civil Union that will correct this and be respected as such across all 56 state/territorial jurisdictions, and avoid preferential treatment in CIVIL law for “sacramental” M/F marriage, and maybe everyone can get along…
As was mentioned earlier in this thread,
Separate but equal isn’t.