The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Aurongroove · 13-12-2012 02:19AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What IS the issue with the word being used. I don't think I've heard any of the Christians here give any tangible reasons as to why they'd object to the word being used. I really would like to hear some tangible reasons why its an issue. Or at least an attempt at the reasoning behind the objection other than 'by definition its not what marriage means' etc. I've been wondering is it because people don't actually have any reasons, or they are afraid to voice them.

So I'll repeat to my Christian brethren, what are the tangible issues? Are there any?

I don't think that's a very productive question.
I know this isn't my thread but a "megathread about gays" and that you're free to ask/post whatever you want, but for the sake of keeping things on track, do you really think going into why Christianity and homosexuality don't mix will yield anything productive?

I mean, I could nearly answer your question and say "because it goes against Christian beliefs" and that that's the deal with religion as I'm sure you well know.
Since it is a religion the word 'tangible' gives you an infinity of rebuttals and get out clauses: One can claim almost any aspect of any religion is intangible in some way or another thus theoretically, no answer to your question would do.

JimiTime · 13-12-2012 02:25AM

Aurongroove wrote: »

I don't think that's a very productive question.
I know this isn't my thread but a "megathread about gays" and that you're free to ask/post whatever you want, but for the sake of keeping things on track, do you really think going into why Christianity and homosexuality don't mix will yield anything productive?

I mean, I could nearly answer your question and say "because it goes against Christian beliefs" that's kinda the deal with religion as I'm sure you well know.
Since it is a religion though the word 'tangible' give you an infinity of rebuttals and get out clause because since one can claim almost any aspect of of any religion is intangible in some way or another thus theoretically, no answer to your question would do.

The question is absolutely ZERO to do with religion actually. In fact, as PDN pointed out to you already, The Evangelical Alliance supported civil union. I'm pretty sure that they don't see homosexual activity and Christianity as compatible though. So now that I've corrected you, I hope you can see the question remains a valid one for Christian objectors to the word 'marriage' being used in same sex context. Its simple, Are there tangible issues?

Benny_Cake · 13-12-2012 06:01AM

Aurongroove wrote: »

I don't think that's a very productive question.
I know this isn't my thread but a "megathread about gays" and that you're free to ask/post whatever you want, but for the sake of keeping things on track, do you really think going into why Christianity and homosexuality don't mix will yield anything productive?

I mean, I could nearly answer your question and say "because it goes against Christian beliefs" and that that's the deal with religion as I'm sure you well know.
Since it is a religion the word 'tangible' gives you an infinity of rebuttals and get out clauses: One can claim almost any aspect of any religion is intangible in some way or another thus theoretically, no answer to your question would do.

Jimi and I would be of very different opinions in this issue but I think he's raised a very important question. If someone believes that same-sex couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples then what is the objection to using the word "marriage", particularly when it is civil marriage that is concerned here. I haven't seen a really convincing answer to that yet. I give great credit to the Evangelical Alliance for wrestling with the issue and producing what is an excellent statement on the issue, but unless a clear objection to the use of the word marriage can be given that is convincing to the wider public, then I feel that it's likely that we'll see full access to civil marriage for same-sex couples within a few years.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2012 06:46AM

I myself favour the introduction of fully legal same-sex marriage, and look forward to the day, etc, etc, so perhaps I’m not best positioned to explain religious objections to the idea. But, for what it’s worth, as I understand it . . .

1. From the religious (or at any rate from the mainstream Christian) perspective, the opposite-sex nature of marriage is fundamental. A relationship between two people of the same sex might be loving, it might be life-enhancing, it might be fruitful in many ways, but it is different in an essential respect from an analogous conjugal relationship between two people of opposite sexes.

2. This proceeds partly from the observation that men and women are fundamentally, radically different. I think that’s uncontroversial. It’s something both sides in this debate would readily agree on, so I won’t labour the point.

3. It follows from this that, for any of us, a conjugal relationship with someone of the same sex is radically different from a conjugal relationship with someone of the opposite sex. This is true whether we are male or female, gay or straight. Again, this is something that I think would be widely agreed on all sides.

4. Right; now we start coming to points of difference. A strong feature of Christian anthropology (that is, a Christian understanding of what it means to be human) is that the significance of being human can’t be reduced simply to an account of what we are; it must also embrace what we are becoming, what we are called to be, what we are for. You don’t have to be a Christian, or even a theist, to think this way, obviously, but nearly all Christians do think this way. It fits very nicely with the notion of redemption.

5. When it comes to human relationships, therefore, Christians tend naturally to think that an adequate account of the relationship must not only embrace what it is, but what it is for - what outcome it is ordered towards.

6. It’s of the essence of male/female conjugal relationships that they are ordered towards procreation. Any particular relationship may not, of course be procreative - one or other of the spouses may be infertile, or they may wish to avoid procreation and practice contraception for that purpose, or it just may not happen. But male/female conjugal relationships as a class are inherently procreative; they are ordered towards procreation. And, historically, this is a pretty big part of the reason why we have socialised and recognised committed conjugal male/female relationships as “marriage”.

7. This can never be true, in the same way, of same-sex relationships. A same-sex couple may want to have children, and they may provide a home and a family in which children are raised in love and security. But those children are never the outcome of the same-sex relationship; their procreation necessarily takes place outside the boundaries of the relationship.

8. Which means that there relationship necessarily lacks one of the central characteristics - if not the central characteristic - of the relationship we know as marriage. It is not ordered towards procreation. This is an important distinction.

9. Assume for the moment that we take all that for granted. (I know, I know, but just go with it for a minute.) Up to now, we have used the word “marriage” to refer to a class of relationships which are inherently procreative. Is there an argument for saying that we must continue to do so?

10. The word can certainly change its meaning. In our time and in our society, the word connotes an exclusive relationship; you can only have one spouse at any time. But, clearly, even within the Judeo-Christian tradition, this was not always so.

11. So, if it changes its meaning again, and comes to denote a set of relationships which includes not only the opposite-sex relationships, ordered towards procreation, that are currently included but also same-sex relationships which are analogous in many respects, but which necessarily are not ordered towards procreation the same fundamental way, does any harm or adverse consequence result?

12. If you think that language affects understanding - how we speak affects the way we think, the way we understand the world and ourselves - then yes, it could. Because if we bracket these two relationships together in one linguistic category, the implication is that the differences between them are unimportant, or at least less important than they would be if we had different words for them. In other words, by rolling them both up in our notion of “marriage” we would be teaching ourselves and our society a lesson about the significance of being ordered towards procreation - and the lesson would be “it’s not all that significant”.

13. And, if you think it is all that significant, this is not a linguistic change which you will wish to see take place. You will expect the quality of conjugal relationships to deteriorate in a society which doesn’t correctly understand them, and which lacks the language which reflects and expresses a correct understanding. The precise way in which this deterioration may manifest itself will not be predictable easily (or at all) but that won’t prevent you from expecting the deterioration. (A bit like global warming, really!)

As I say, I’m not entirely in sympathy with this view, and I may not be expressing it very well. So if someone who is of this view comes along to correct me, they are very probably right.

doctoremma · 13-12-2012 08:40AM

Aurongroove wrote: »

yes, you see that's my thinking too. Progress isn't really progress unless it is mutual, not when it's "ground gained in a war"

But if your 'foot in the door' doesn't make things any easier in the future, perhaps a more blunt approach is acceptable? It takes a lot more time for a society to move from 'nothing' to 'recognition of a legal same sex union in some format' than it does from the latter to 'same sex marriage'. The difference between the last two is, in my opinion, small compared to the difference between the first two. It would also be reasonable to predict that once a legal union has been formalised, marriage laws are inevitable. So again, a blunt approach, get it all done and dusted in one fell swoop.

aloyisious · 13-12-2012 10:17AM

It (IMO) is simple logic that once one step has been taken by humans in any direction (give an inch and they'll take a mile) more steps will be taken along that first-step route. I'm assuming that people who oppose the notion of Gay Marriage have recognized that fact and with partnerships legally permitted here in the republic, they reckon the next step through that opened door will be the altering of the republic's laws on marriage.

(@doctoremma: Human history say's humans never really learn from it, and a legal battle grand will be inevitable, indeed is now ongoing. Things (hopefully) will inevitably come to pass and Gay marriage will be eventually seen as a fact of life and not the sky falling in)

It's entirely within the human spectrum of experience that in centuries to come, there may be a hindsight reversal of view on the issue, with people scratching their heads and asking "whatever were they thinking of back then?"

Penn · 13-12-2012 02:33PM

aloyisious wrote: »

It (IMO) is simple logic that once one step has been taken by humans in any direction (give an inch and they'll take a mile) more steps will be taken along that first-step route. I'm assuming that people who oppose the notion of Gay Marriage have recognized that fact and with partnerships legally permitted here in the republic, they reckon the next step through that opened door will be the altering of the republic's laws on marriage.

(@doctoremma: Human history say's humans never really learn from it, and a legal battle grand will be inevitable, indeed is now ongoing. Things (hopefully) will inevitably come to pass and Gay marriage will be eventually seen as a fact of life and not the sky falling in)

It's entirely within the human spectrum of experience that in centuries to come, there may be a hindsight reversal of view on the issue, with people scratching their heads and asking "whatever were they thinking of back then?"

Ignoring the part about the altering of the republic's laws on marriage for a minute, surely you could say the exact same thing about marriage in the first place? That because man and woman were allowed to get married, then that opened the door for same-sex couples to want to get married etc. Should we take away marriage from everyone?

As for your 'slippery slope' claim, claiming same-sex marriage could lead to X, Y or Z is invalid because it's impossible to know. Preventing some people from having the same rights as others is surely more important than simply "playing it safe".

Besides which, what will not allowing same-sex marriage lead to? Gay people becoming angry at not having equal rights. Huge split between Equal Rights supporters and traditionalists. Civil war. Shifts to other countries. World War 3. Nuclear bombs being used. Millions, possibly billions dead. Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

The problem with slippery slopes is that the other side of the slope might be just as slippery.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2012 02:36PM

Penn wrote: »

The problem with slippery slopes is that the other side of the slope might be just as slippery.

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that if you accept one then you must accept them all.

Zombrex · 13-12-2012 03:07PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that if you accept one then you must accept them all.

:P

tommy2bad · 13-12-2012 05:43PM

I think the issue is ownership, of the word marriage. One side says that the word is the property of the state and the other that it a descriptor of some intangible condition and that they own the term because their god created that condition.
One option is for one or the other to opt out of the marriage business altogether.
Impractical for the state to do so as it's alternative is to continue with marriage but call it something else, marathon/snikkers.
Impossible for the religious as their definition cant be changed without some concession on so many other things, slippery slope an all that.
We all accept that the same word can mean different things in different contexts so again why the fuss over this word, let marriage mean what it means in a religious context and what it means in a legal context Why dose a state context have to include the religious aspects to be called marriage?
And what gives the religious the right to define a state declaration of what anything is?

JimiTime · 13-12-2012 06:23PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

And what gives the religious the right to define a state declaration of what anything is?

TBH, thats very much twisting things. Marriage is already defined in the context of gender. Its not about the religious having the right to define it, but rather the state REdefining it. Most religious are not looking to define it, but rather stop others from redefining it. The pertinent question as I see it, is if there are any foreseeable issues with such redefinition. That IMO, is where the conversation needs to be.

aloyisious · 13-12-2012 06:43PM

Penn wrote: »

Ignoring the part about the altering of the republic's laws on marriage for a minute, surely you could say the exact same thing about marriage in the first place? That because man and woman were allowed to get married, then that opened the door for same-sex couples to want to get married etc. Should we take away marriage from everyone?

As for your 'slippery slope' claim, claiming same-sex marriage could lead to X, Y or Z is invalid because it's impossible to know. Preventing some people from having the same rights as others is surely more important than simply "playing it safe".

Besides which, what will not allowing same-sex marriage lead to? Gay people becoming angry at not having equal rights. Huge split between Equal Rights supporters and traditionalists. Civil war. Shifts to other countries. World War 3. Nuclear bombs being used. Millions, possibly billions dead. Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

The problem with slippery slopes is that the other side of the slope might be just as slippery.

@Penn.... Re the points in your Para 1, the point about same-sex couples wanting what hetero-couples have, marriage, rules already exist in Civil law denying some people (not just same-sex couples) access to marriage. Part of the current argument inside and outside court is that marriage is being denied to people, so the "take away marriage" point does not apply to same-sex couples. YES.... there would be reasons to deny people access to Civil Marriage and I don't mean Socio-Religious reasons.

There are those opposing same-sex marriage who base their argument majorly on Socio-Religious grounds (and this includes people of non-Christian belief) and are firmly of the opinion that Marriage of any kind is related to what they believe is Divinely-given procreation reasons. These people view marriage, including Civil Law marriage, in that light.

Re your Para 2, I certainly did not mean what I posted to mean (or be read as meaning) any slippery slope. Being gay myself, I believe that Same-sex couples should have access to Civil Marriage here in Ireland, performed here in Ireland. I believe that just because one would not want to have a Civil Marriage oneself is no reason to refuse another person have one. This in your para 2 (Preventing some people from having the same rights as others is surely more important than simply "playing it safe".) seem's contradictory as some people who may vote "NO" and deny Civil Marriage to LGBT persons may do so on a "playing it safe" basis.

Re your Para 3, there are LGBT persons here in the republic who do not see any reason for same-sex Civil Marriage and/or don't agree with the notion but I don't think any of them will take up the MAD option

Re your Para 4, that can apply to any situation in life.

tommy2bad · 13-12-2012 08:48PM

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, thats very much twisting things. Marriage is already defined in the context of gender. Its not about the religious having the right to define it, but rather the state REdefining it. Most religious are not looking to define it, but rather stop others from redefining it. The pertinent question as I see it, is if there are any foreseeable issues with such redefinition. That IMO, is where the conversation needs to be.

Ahh, I kinda see that but again it assumes that the religious definition is what the civil one is rather than that it parallels that definition .
Also marriage is now and always has been socially defined, people assume it means what they do, polygamy is seen as marriage, remarriage after divorce is accepted as marriage.
Are you arguing that we define marriage as a union of two people who can potentially produce offspring that have shared genetic material? That leaves out the infertile! Worse it includes cohabiting couples who may have no wish to be married.

Aurongroove · 14-12-2012 01:58AM

JimiTime wrote: »

The question is absolutely ZERO to do with religion actually. In fact, as PDN pointed out to you already, The Evangelical Alliance supported civil union. I'm pretty sure that they don't see homosexual activity and Christianity as compatible though. So now that I've corrected you, I hope you can see the question remains a valid one for Christian objectors to the word 'marriage' being used in same sex context. Its simple, Are there tangible issues?

I wasn't saying the question wasn't valid, I was saying it wasn't productive.
As in, I predict that whichever answer you get for the question, it won't do(as an answer).
That answer to your question, valid as it may be, is a lose/lose dead end for the discussion was my point, not that it wasn't valid.

Sorry guy's I've been working and I'll be busy all week, but the posts have been really good. I'll need time to look at peregrines and the rest!

Aurongroove · 14-12-2012 02:03PM

Peregrinus long list of points (and the responces to it) show the type of things we're grappling when looking at why so many are hung up on the word 'marriage'.

you may be able to argue them one by one, you may be able to defeat them all eventually perhaps, perhaps you may not, the point is each of the arguments would be dipping in and out of moral beliefs, strong opinions, long discussions and other things that really at the end of the day reside in the realms of "this is my opinion, I have a right to express it as does the rest of the population" but it's these beliefs that are holding things back via the "but we want it to be called marriage" avenue.

Let me make my statement as a question.

why does it matter more then equal rights to have the definition of the word marriage dealt with first?, before, for example, equal rights under a different name? which is almost in arms reach only it needs one final push
and that push is not resisted very strongly (not as strongly as wanting people to share the definition of it as marriage)

Sadly, not enough people seem to care enough to want to grab what is right in front of us, only called a different name. Instead they fold their arms and say "but why can't we have exactly what we want including the bits that matter a little less then civil legal equality, and what's the point of even lifting a finger for any other reason?"

well, then you're as much an enemy of progress then those stopping fighting to "protect" the definition of marriage.
I don't care about people who care if their wedding is called a marriage or not, I just want equal rights.

14-12-2012 02:21PM

But your position is based on the massive assumption that equal rights are available if only they'd drop the name request. That's, at best, naive. The use of the term marriage is synonymous with full and equal rights in a civil partnership. The use of the term civil union is synonymous with "granting more rights, but not quite all of them". Where civil union laws have been brought in, have the complaints ever been "But it's not called marriage"? No, the complaints have always been "It doesn't grant the same legal rights as marriage". The percentage of people on either side whose sole problem is what it is called is tiny.

Not to mention, no government is going to draw up two sets of legislation for the exact same thing with one word changed. It would be a legal minefield.

tommy2bad · 14-12-2012 02:41PM

Aurongroove;
why does it matter more then equal rights

If it requires a separate name then it's not equal it some form of "separate but equal" which as you well know is a fig-leaf for inequality.

28064212;
The percentage of people on either side whose sole problem is what it is called is tiny.

True, again :I don't mind them having the same rights as long as it's not called marriage" is another fig-leaf for "I don't want them having the same rights as me"

aloyisious · 14-12-2012 02:45PM

Well done Aurongroove and Pergrinus: I agree with you on the "what's in a name" front. Part of the debate between LGBT persons and others (like, on here) about same-sex marriage is about the differences between what Irish Law give's to heterosexual couples who take Marriage vows in our republic and those that Irish Law give's to same-sex couples within Partnership Ceremonies. Until those differences are removed from the Irish Statute Law books, there will be no equality between what is given to the different couples.

Personally, I'd like LGBT couples to be able to use the word "marriage" in a fully-legalistic frame when they refer to their committments as carried out within Irish Law.

MrPudding · 16-12-2012 09:23AM

The name is actually important. If you look at the proposition 8 cases in California you will see quite a big deal was made of it.

California had same sex union with identical rights and responsibilities for same sex couples, it just wasn't called marriage. This causes a couple of problems, some of which might appear minor to those not suffering from them. Some examples were:

Some people did not know what civil partnership was.

Same sex couples did not know what to call their "partner".
More importantly, by designating a different name for their union the state was effectively telling people that they did not co sided it to e the same thing. By restricting the use of the word marriage to opposite sex couples, even where same sex couples has all the other relevant rights, the state was implying that it was ok to discriminate against same sex couples.

The defender of proposition 8 used many of the arguments you see in this thread against same sex marriage, and they were unable to prove any of them had any basis in reality or were not based on a religiously informed disapproval.

Very interesting, though quite long, cases if you are interested. I would highly recommend reading them, particularly if you tend to deploy similar arguments to justify discrimination that failed so miserably in these cases.

MrP

Aurongroove · 16-12-2012 05:48PM

Hmm, so it is completely impossible for two words to mean ideltical things legally, but different things culturally and sexually

for example it is impossible for marriage and civil union to mean the same thing legally (for them to grant the rights legally) but mean different things sexually (one being same sex, and one being opposite sex)

It is completely impossible for two "words" to mean the identical things legally but different things culturally and sexually.

Let me tackle this with sarcasm:

So back when laws applied differently to men then they did to women (i.e. women's suffrage), the only conceivably solution was to make society call women "men" and call men "men" and there was no other way.

It wouldn't be possible at all in any way for men and women to have equal rights, despite being called different things, because one of them is a man, and the other is a woman. and how can to things have equal legal status if they're called different things?

tommy2bad · 16-12-2012 05:59PM

Thats why the law uses the descriptor 'person or persons' not man or woman and where it dose use man it's taken to mean mankind.
This is not negoiatiable if its the same then it should have the same name.

MrPudding · 16-12-2012 08:01PM

Aurongroove wrote: »

 why does it matter more then equal rights to have the definition of the word marriage dealt with first?, before, for example, equal rights under a different name? which is almost in arms reach only it needs one final push and that push is not resisted very strongly (not as strongly as wanting people to share the definition of it as marriage)  Sadly, not enough people seem to care enough to want to grab what is right in front of us, only called a different name. Instead they fold their arms and say "but why can't we have exactly what we want including the bits that matter a little less then civil legal equality, and what's the point of even lifting a finger for any other reason?"   well, then you're as much an enemy of progress then those stopping fighting to "protect" the definition of marriage.  I don't care about people who care if their wedding is called a marriage or not, I just want equal rights.

I know I have taken your posts out of order, but I just wanted to point out that in California they did have all the legal rights under the civil partnership legislation, they were looking the last bit.  

Aurongroove wrote: »

Hmm, so it is completely impossible for two words to mean ideltical things legally, but different things culturally and sexually  for example it is impossible for marriage and civil union to mean the same thing legally (for them to grant the rights legally) but mean different things sexually (one being same sex, and one being opposite sex)  It is completely impossible for two "words" to mean the identical things legally but different things culturally and sexually.

I assume you are referring to my post…? If so, you seem to have misunderstand. Marriage and civil partnership, in California did, in fact, mean the same thing legally. In the sense of the rights each bestowed and the responsibilities that came with them. Legally identical.    

Aurongroove wrote: »

Let me tackle this with sarcasm:

Yes, let’s, because that always works, particularly when the one deploying the sarcasm appears to have misunderstood the post he or she is aiming it at.  

Aurongroove wrote: »

So back when laws applied differently to men then they did to women (i.e. women's suffrage), the only conceivably solution was to make society call women "men" and call men "men" and there was no other way.

As Tommy has pointed out, laws, unless they are specifically aimed at a particular sex either use general neutral terms or specifically say that the provisions should be applied equally. I don’t think there is anything going on there other than a desire to make drafting of legislation easier and remove ambiguity, though I could quite easily be wrong on this, I am having some trouble grasping the point you are trying to make.

But that doesn’t really matter, the point was, the two things (marriage and civil partnership) were legally identical. What was at issue was, in essence, the cultural view of civil partnership and how it lessened same sex couples and their relationships.  

Aurongroove wrote: »

It wouldn't be possible at all in any way for men and women to have equal rights, despite being called different things, because one of them is a man, and the other is a woman. and how can to things have equal legal status if they're called different things?

I presume this is still meant to be sarcasm and it is still aimed at my post? Again, it is wrong. Under Californian law civil partnership and marriage (notice the different names) had identical rights, responsibilities and standing in law. The issue, as the court saw it in the in re marriages and Perry v Brown (formerly Schwarzenegger) was not how the law viewed it, but how society viewed it. Here nice quote from in re marriages that I hope explains things, it was discussing whether the state had a compelling reason for restricting the designation of marriage to opposite sex couples. They concluded there was no compelling reason:

wrote:

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.

Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite- sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

MrP

NuMarvel · 16-12-2012 10:40PM

28064212 wrote: »

Not to mention, no government is going to draw up two sets of legislation for the exact same thing with one word changed. It would be a legal minefield.

On a practical level, you've hit upon a good point. Having civil marriage legislation and civil union legislation, where the rights and responsibilities of both are exactly the same, is inefficient. It means that both sets of legislation have to be maintained and kept current, as well as having separate, but identical, administrative processes.

Moreover, and this is wandering into conspiracy territory slightly, it could make it easier for a future government to break the link between the two processes. Rights and responsibilities for one group of people could be advanced or reduced without reference to the other group. Thereby reintroducing inequality.

While legislation will be needed be introduce marriage equality, there's no need to go to the lengths of introducing an entirely new and separate act. What's needed is an amendment act that repeals the section of the Civil Registration Act that prohibits same sex couples marrying, and deals the the Civil Partnerships part of the Civil Partnerships and Cohabitants Act. After that, all marriages would be dealt with in the same way as they currently are, regardless of the gender make up of the participants.

Aurongroove · 17-12-2012 05:59PM

MrP
I feel ill equipped to tackle the issues regarding California and the proposition 8 cases and yes I probably should read them! they look like they might be very important.

MrPudding · 17-12-2012 06:17PM

Aurongroove wrote: »

MrP
I feel ill equipped to tackle the issues regarding California and the proposition 8 cases and yes I probably should read them! they look like they might be very important.

I think they are very important. There is currently an appeal lodged with the US Supreme Court, so it will be interesting to see how that goes. It is likely to be quite close.

I have attached the cases for those interested. In re marriages is the case that allowed same sex marriage. Very interesting case and very important for the rights of same sex couples in California. It was after this case that proposition 8 went through. In re marriages ruled, in very simplistic terms, that limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was against the Californian constitution. Those that wanted to limit marriage then tried to change the constitution so there discrimination was not unconstitutional. The interesting thing for me is that when something you are doing is deemed to be unconstitutional I would expect that to be a kind of hint that what you are trying to do is wrong. But that's just me.

The California-Prop-8... case is Proposition 8 being ruled as unconstitutional with respect to the US constitution.

The Perry v Brown case is the 9th Circuit Court appeal of the Proposition 8 case.

There is a lot of reading, but i would highly recommend it for those on both sides.

MrP

Aurongroove · 18-12-2012 03:24AM

I disagree with your conclusions (and the reasoning you've used to reach those conclusions), but it would be unproductive to go into why in this thread. not at least until after I look at those cases you've posted.

JimiTime · 20-12-2012 07:45PM

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/gay-friendly-queen-james-bible-released

So sad. God will grant light from this darkness I'm sure, but I can't help but feel that the people behind this are heaping hot coals on their head. What I can't understand, is that these people KNOW that they're changing things to suit their sexual choices. Is this blatant dishonesty, or self-deception?

Benny_Cake · 20-12-2012 07:56PM

JimiTime wrote: »

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/gay-friendly-queen-james-bible-released

So sad. God will grant light from this darkness I'm sure, but I can't help but feel that the people behind this are heaping hot coals on their head. What I can't understand, is that these people KNOW that they're changing things to suit their sexual choices. Is this blatant dishonesty, or self-deception?

It seems to be the King James Bible with 8 verses altered. As the KJV is in the public domain, and freely available online, I don't see why someone wouldn't just go online, download it, and change any verses they like free of charge rather than pay $35 to Amazon for the privilege. I would suspect that whoever is responsible for this may not be Christian, or gay - they appear to be choosing to remain anonymous. Thought this review on Amazon was very apt!

tommy2bad · 20-12-2012 07:56PM

JimiTime wrote: »

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/gay-friendly-queen-james-bible-released

So sad. God will grant light from this darkness I'm sure, but I can't help but feel that the people behind this are heaping hot coals on their head. What I can't understand, is that these people KNOW that they're changing things to suit their sexual choices. Is this blatant dishonesty, or self-deception?

I think their taking the proverbial tbh, Anyway their no worse than AIG or Conservapedia so whats panic.

JimiTime · 20-12-2012 11:26PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It seems to be the King James Bible with 8 verses altered. As the KJV is in the public domain, and freely available online, I don't see why someone wouldn't just go online, download it, and change any verses they like free of charge rather than pay $35 to Amazon for the privilege. I would suspect that whoever is responsible for this may not be Christian, or gay - they appear to be choosing to remain anonymous. Thought this review on Amazon was very apt!

Actually you're right, its assumption on my part that the people who have done this are homosexuals or homosexuals who desire to be both Christian and practicing homosexuals. I suppose, its in someways a logical assumption, but you're right, we don't yet know who's behind it. IF it is actually people who want homosexual practice and Christianity to be compatible, then I think this works against their argument anyway.

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments