Bit of a odd one this.
Marriage originally comes from Abrahamic based religion, and is meant as a union between man and women. Also these religions condemn homosexuality. So in this sense I can see why religious people don´t want the term being used.
On the other hand in liberal tolerant society why shouldn´t homo´s be allowed to legally join and benifit from the same things normal couples do.
Then you have the democratic "majority rules" thing, well if the majority is against it then shouldn´t it be so? Not in this case methinks because it doesn´t help the minority out of a corner.
I propose a different name for the "marriage" of homosexuals, and maybe some unique things built into the contract for whatever reason.
anyone any ideas.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Marriage originally comes from Abrahamic based religion, and is meant as a union between man and women.
No, it most certainly does not originally come from Abrahamic religions - the concept existed long before any of those religions did. I will never understand where this idea comes from. There are laws regarding marriage in Hammurabi's Code, and certainly has existed far longer than that.
Not to mention the fact that these days marriage is a legal thing. If religions don't want to perform marriages between two people of the same gender, fine. But they shouldn't use that to get in the way of people wanting to have the same legal rights anyone else would get for a committed relationship.
We simply have civil paretnerships here in the UK... A thing any sane person can agree to. It gives Homosexuals every right to be joined in civil union without calling it marriage. It gives them the same rights without pissing of religious people. Sure, there are a lot of homosexuals who still don't like the fact they can't get "married" but this is necessary to appease most.
One could argue that allowing it ingringes the rights of the church by cheapening marriage by allowing homosexuals marry (I don't believe it does... but many do) as much as the ban is infringing the rights of the homosexuals who wish to marry.
As far as I'm concerned.. If you're not homosexual or you're not opposed to homosexual marriage this simply isn't your battle. There is no right and wrong here like so many think there is.
One could argue that allowing it ingringes the rights of the church by cheapening marriage by allowing homosexuals marry
One can only make this argument if someone tried to pass a law saying that churches have to marry homosexual couples. Which isn't the case at all.
Quite frankly, it's a very stupid argument. Especially since I'd say that divorce and annulments 'cheapen' marriage more than allowing gays to marry.
Originally posted by PeachI meant it cheapens marriage as a whole... The same way you could argue divorce does.
One can only make this argument if someone tried to pass a law saying that churches have to marry homosexual couples. Which isn't the case at all.Quite frankly, it's a very stupid argument.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I meant it cheapens marriage as a whole... The same way you could argue divorce does.
Hah, read my edit 😛
I just don't get how it cheapens marriage at all. Marriage is a legal thing. Yes, you can marry in a church and have a religious ceremony and all, but it's not a legal marriage without that piece of paper from the courthouse.
Originally posted by PeachIf you believe that marriage is just a legal thing then you're obviously wrong. There is tradition behind it... Even if it's not adheared to by everyone.
Hah, read my edit 😛I just don't get how it cheapens marriage at all. Marriage is a legal thing. Yes, you can marry in a church and have a religious ceremony and all, but it's not a legal marriage without that piece of paper from the courthouse.
Look, I don't have any problem with the notion of homosexuals getting married... But do I think that they have a moral right to it? No (The same legal rights... sure, see my bit on Civil Partnerships.)... Some things simply aren't made for everyone. The debate simply isn't that cut and dry.
I don't agree that they should put it foreward for public vote and then simply overrule it in the courts.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, this is a case of two types of democratic oppression:Prop 8: A very simple case of majoritarianism: the oppression of a minority by the majority.
The overturning of Prop 8: A very simple case of purely democratic legislation being overturned by one person. The majority spoke and it was batted aside.
Yeesh, when the minority gets oppressed that's bad. When the majority gets oppressed that's bad. Will nothing make you happy?
Originally posted by §P0oONY
If you believe that marriage is just a legal thing then you're obviously wrong. There is tradition behind it... Even if it's not adheared to by everyone.
Yes, in Western countries at least, it is a legal thing. A lot of people still adhere to religious traditions involving it, but that doesn't mean it's not a legal thing nowadays. As I said already - you can have your religious wedding if so you wish, no one is stopping that. However, without a marriage certificate - which is a legal document issued by a courthouse, in the US at least - it is not considered a legal marriage and you are not granted the same legal rights.
"It's tradition" is never a good reason to keep something that should have been changed ages ago.
Originally posted by Robtard
All the butt-hurt haters, especially the religious hate-groups that spent millions of dollars in getting Prop 8 passed in the first place, now being told "sorry, what other people do is none of your business; they have the same rights as you do", brings a smile to my face.
I have to agree with this.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeesh, when the minority gets oppressed that's bad. When the majority gets oppressed that's bad. Will nothing make you happy?
Except that I wouldn't say that saying "Sorry, you don't have the right to decide what other people do in their private lives" is really oppressing anyone (oppressing what, exactly? Their right to be nosy?). Whereas letting people vote to deny what is generally considered a basic human right to people is.
Originally posted by Peach
Well, if millions of voters vote for something that's unconstitutional, then yes, they have the possibility of being overruled by one person. That's simply how the US law-making system works.America isn't even a true democracy anyway.
I have not read the judges ruling but having read the Constitution many times I'd really like to know what he's basing decision on. Unlike Arizona's immigration law (which I support but admit is unconstitutional) there's nothing in the constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over what defines marriage. We will see what the US Supreme court says as this case will doubtless end up there.
You're right about America not being a democracy and it's become a Republic in name only anymore, much like China is communist in name only. America has become a mercantilist oligarchy.
All I'm saying is give them the same legal rights.... Just don't call it marriage.
Can the homosexuals in the partnership say they're "married"... Of course. Then can be Man... and erm... Man... Or Wife and... well Wife. But legally they're not "married" they're just something on par.
It's simply a way of appeasing the majortiy.
I'm also saying don't put it up for people to vote on if their vote means nothing.
imo "it will appease the majority" is just as bad as "its tradition". **** the majorities' unhappiness. theyll eventually get over it just like theyve gotten over every other civil rights movement. if they didnt then we wouldnt have things like interracial marriages and colored politicians, both concepts of which were heavily hated and detested at the time of their introduction.