[Izzy]

Before I begin, I'm going to point out a few things about myself. Although I'm trying to write this as unbiasedly as possible, I feel obligated to mention my stances on religion, sexuality, and government. I think if everyone knows my position starting out, it won't lead to any guesses or false information. For one, I'm atheist, and not a huge fan of churches to begin with. I haven't believed in any sort of God for about 3 years now (I was agnostic/atheist on and off for some time, but definitely atheist now). On sexuality, well, it's complicated. Let's just say I'm attracted to cool people, be they male or female. I'm 100% for gay rights, and I have no problem growing old with, um, a woman. (Still a little weird saying that >_>). Also, I'm liberal. Although I have no problem with conservatives in general, I do not agree with the majority of their values as presented by McCain during the '08 election or by Bush since I've been in Kindergarten. Though these two men do not reflect all conservative ideas, they are pretty much all I'm familiar with, ergo what I base my views on.

So, let's sum that up. Anti-church, pro-gay, anti-conservative, pro-liberal. That's 4 points State, 0 points Church. Without a doubt, we can see which side I'm on when it comes to most matters. But then you're probably wondering where the (my) problem lies.

To begin, marriage is pretty much a holy union strictly between men and women, as approved by God and the church, and legalized by some sort of spiritual. representative. People all over the world get married, yet it's always with some sort of priest. Marriage was created by the church, so isn't it their say who can and can not be married? If a church decides gays shouldn't be allowed to wed because it goes against their bible, isn't their decision final? A priest can totally deny wedding a same-sex couple just because s/he feels like it, right? ...Right?

Well, so far I'm not convinced. Though marriage is legally binding, and all things legal are controlled/created by our governments, (I'm not implying that marriage was created by our government, I'm saying that the fact that it actually means something with some sort of legal-stand-point was set down in the law by our regime), there isn't really anything that changes about you once you get married. You own more things, and if you're female you go from a miss to a Mrs. It isn't illegal to cheat on your spouse, in fact, nothing that the bible says you shouldn't do whilst married is illegal, it just generally causes a divorce.

So then, what's the point of getting married? For theists, I suppose it's some holy matrimony that shows the world and God they love each other. For atheists, it's just showing the world they love each other. However, in this case, are atheists any different than gays? Why would churches allow someone who very openly doesn't believe in God to get married, while someone who does believe in God yet is attracted to someone of their own gender can not? I think that's just about the dumbest thing ever.

So, Church vs. State on Marriage Laws, at this point the church wins. They created it, they control. The State should have no say because honestly they've got nothing to do with it. If the State were to abolish all churches ( ) and recreate marriage to where it means something more than just binding two people my God, then all problems solved. Alternatively, there should be some sort of equal to marriage for atheists and gays. Not that domestic partnership stuff. It's still marriage, as in the people are still bound by the same rules, it just has nothing to do with religion. I could so go for that.

Anyway... Discuss! Debate! I'm going to bed now.

[Guest]

Whoa-kay there Octopuppy, there's nothing personal here, so no need to be offended. The point isn't about calling same sex vs. heterosexual marriage something different. It's about calling a legal vs. a religious union something different. The reason for that is that one of them is a legal binding, and the other is a spiritual one. Churches are allowed to hold whatever views they want on things like same sex marriage, and due to the separation of church and state it just makes sense to differentiate. This goes both for marriages that the church doesn't want to sanctify, and for couples that don't want a church interfering in their union.

It wasn't what you said that I find offensive, just the idea that marriage (by that name) should be denied to gay people generally. Like you said, it would be pretty sad to do that. Was in a bit of a ranting mood , sorry if it sounded like I was having a go at you. I feel that gay people are still marginalized in this area, and the language we use matters. As far as I'm concerned marriage is first and foremost a personal thing, and to me the religious aspect is pretty irrelevant. In my experience most church weddings take place for reasons of tradition rather than belief anyway. The idea of marriage being a "spiritual union" and that without the religious aspect all you have is some sort of legal contract is bogus in my opinion. It entirely misses the point of what marriage is for. It's a thing that exists so that people in love can make a definite, public, permanent commitment to each other. Everything else is a side issue.

[Guest]

Wait wait wait... what if you had a gay coulpe living right next to you? How would you feel about that???

my mom's gay. how do I feel about that? fine.

[Guest]

QUOTE

I belive church and state should be totally seprareted,

Agreed. They are.

QUOTE

which brings up a problem, is marrige part of church or state.

That\'s what this thread is about.

QUOTE

Well, the truth is, it\'s more a matter of state than church, though it is perfectly Ok, for theists to bring God into their marrige.

Care to explain why it\'s more of a matter of state?

Ok, cause, where do you get your marrige lisence? The goverment? Where do you get a divorce? The goverment!

QUOTE

While I am dead-set against gay marriage,I believe we should be tolerant of others opinoins,

Meh to the first bit, good to the second

QUOTE

but I seriously think anyone gay needs a shrink. Honestly, gays are totally against human nature, and I think it\'s slightly freaky.

*cringe* Please go read Andromeda\'s post before I say something I regret...

Sorry, I had a bad day! http://brainden.com/forum/uploads/emoticons/default_mellow.png' alt=':mellow:'> (I did not mean to be soo harsh.)

QUOTE

But I am also open to the fact that it could be alright, but there is no way I am getting married to a woman. Well, I am kind of undecided. I think after we discuss, we should VOTE!!

Better. And definitely.

[Guest]

I was always raised that gays were *cough loonybirdsthatneededhelp cough* so that's probobly why I typed that. On the other hand I believe in tolerance. Sorry You Guys!

[itachi-san]

I have no problem with gays getting married. I was always under the impression that most (if not all) religions were anti-gay, so I figured: why would gays want to get married by a group that didn't like them? But apparently religions (some) don't mind, so who cares? Let them get married. A gay couple should have the same rights and legal privileges as a straight couple. Reason being: we are in fact animals (contrary to Jrod's opinion). Some other animals are born gay, just like humans. Therefore, those people born gay have no choice but to be gay, so why should they have to put up with segregation in any form?

I'll raise another issue though. The conventional marriage is man and woman (I think that's not arguable, but we'll see ). So, now I (and some others here) are saying gay marriage is fine. So what isn't fine then? Can I have 7 wives if we all love each other? And what would the legality of that entail? My point is that one minority group shouldn't be obliged, if others are still not allowed to partake. But the others involve all sorts of complications and eventually the ideal of marriage would become convoluted and full of legal loop-holes involving taxes, etc... It would inspire marriage to many spouses to get all sorts of benefits (similar to marrying to get citizenship). All I'm saying is that if the conventional marriage is opened up, it might lead to lots of problems that would tie up the legal system and cause societal unrest. But IMO, if everyone involved is in love, then so be it. Let them have their cake.

[Guest]

Okay not going back to see who's quotes these originated from - remarks of LIS in bold italic

QUOTE

I belive church and state should be totally seprareted,

Agreed. They are. TOTALLY?

QUOTE

which brings up a problem, is marrige part of church or state.

That\'s what this thread is about. That's not a reply

QUOTE

Well, the truth is, it\'s more a matter of state than church, though it is perfectly Ok, for theists to bring God into their marrige. True

Care to explain why it\'s more of a matter of state?

Ok, cause, where do you get your marrige lisence? The goverment? Where do you get a divorce? The goverment! Some religions you can not remarry unless your parner is deceased/beheaded (H.VII) and others not at all - it's not all about christianity. Also a religious wedding is not recognised as legal (for some strange reason - a matter of stile, extra singing etc as well the witnessing is the same -location location location)

QUOTE

While I am dead-set against gay marriage,I believe we should be tolerant of others opinoins, Twisting your words -others but not you, one foot in the door on your way OUT! (see below)

Meh to the first bit, good to the second ????

QUOTE

but I seriously think anyone gay needs a shrink. Honestly, gays are totally against human nature, and I think it\'s slightly freaky. - Okay you half apologized below but do you know so much about human nature? Is it a majority vote - the brains of the world are a minority and some of them behave differently and theyt may be labeled gifted/freaks according to the 'others' on the basis that there inteect is inspiring and appreciated or just incomprehensible.

*cringe* Please go read Andromeda\'s post before I say something I regret... ???? your opinion ????

Sorry, I had a bad day! (I did not mean to be soo harsh.)

QUOTE

But I am also open to the fact that it could be alright, but there is no way I am getting married to a woman. Well, I am kind of undecided. I think after we discuss, we should VOTE!! ?Undecided? is that IN or OUT. Actually that may not be important as it is your choice on relationship, a vote will not be conclusive I think

Better. And definitely. - What?

I was always raised that gays were *cough loonybirdsthatneededhelp cough* so that's probobly why I typed that. On the other hand I believe in tolerance. Sorry You Guys! - right or wrong you are aloud a loud opinion, no need to cough or apologize. BTW - the looney does not apply to men ????

Seems like a strict enforced upbringing you have, it's up to you to stay in those boundaries - just wonder if they are 'comfortable' on the basis that it you are indoctrinated with preconceived ideas that may or may not be true - have you actually thought about this for more than a second before the indoctrination jerks you back. BTW it's still your choice to stay 'checked' by others and respect your family and religion - not my cup of tea to stay in someone else's box.

Just to confirm my opinion to save you looking back CSG, I don't believe that 'others' have a right to judge and condemn any ones personal choice regarding something that does not harm me. Even if I was in a minority group (any subject) I do not need someone else's validation. Nor should gays and nor should the religious have to marry according to state - that should also be a confirmation of a legal intention. Free speech and free will - unless it means Im gonna kill you and you have a gun

[Guest]

Some religions you can not remarry unless your parner is deceased/beheaded (H.VII) and others not at all - it's not all about christianity. Also a religious wedding is not recognised as legal (for some strange reason - a matter of stile, extra singing etc as well the witnessing is the same -location location location)

LMAO at that! As long as beheading's an option, that's all you need isn't it? At least you don't have to deal with messy divorce proceedings (nothing that a mop and bucket wouldnt take care of, anyhow)

I think it's entirely appropriate not to view a religious wedding as a legal thing in its own right, rather as just an optional add-on to the legal marriage. Reason being that religions may have their own rules / customs / requirements and tend to want to do things their way. As long as the religious wedding is not a legal entity the state can let them get on with it however they want. Total separation of church and state. As it should be

[Guest]

I find it quite bizarre that people say being gay is not natural or against human nature. Where's the justification for that?

Homosexuality is documented in ancient history all over the world, and occurs frequently within other species as well, including those most closely related to humans. If that isn't an indication of something being natural (and human nature) I don't know what is.

And if it isn't natural, what is it then? A fashion statement?

It's a sad homophobic view that seeks to distance your own nature from the nature of gay people. Really, why so much fear?

[Guest]

LMAO at that! As long as beheading's an option, that's all you need isn't it? At least you don't have to deal with messy divorce proceedings (nothing that a mop and bucket wouldnt take care of, anyhow)

Nice perspective!

I think it's entirely appropriate not to view a religious wedding as a legal thing in its own right, rather as just an optional add-on to the legal marriage. Reason being that religions may have their own rules / customs / requirements and tend to want to do things their way. As long as the religious wedding is not a legal entity the state can let them get on with it however they want. Total separation of church and state. As it should be

In the Netherlands you religious wedding does not count in its own right - you have to register as well. I think is't a waste of time to do two - Why two, should not the rule be that whichever religion you marry by, that the legal right is automatically applied. So long as the church are stating that it applies when the couple are requesting religious ceremony. Unfortunately the divorce does not work the same way.

[Guest]

In the Netherlands you religious wedding does not count in its own right - you have to register as well. I think is't a waste of time to do two - Why two, should not the rule be that whichever religion you marry by, that the legal right is automatically applied. So long as the church are stating that it applies when the couple are requesting religious ceremony. Unfortunately the divorce does not work the same way.

The problem with having a legal process carried out by a religious organisation is that you're giving them legal powers which then really ought to be exercised in an appropriate way (evenhandedly, treating all citizens alike and without prejudice). That's a tall order for a religion. It is in the nature of religions to have their own rules and values which are independent of the law of the land and thought to have precedence over it. To involve such a body in civil proceedings is inherently foolish.

[Guest]

The problem with having a legal process carried out by a religious organisation is that you're giving them legal powers which then really ought to be exercised in an appropriate way (evenhandedly, treating all citizens alike and without prejudice). That's a tall order for a religion. It is in the nature of religions to have their own rules and values which are independent of the law of the land and thought to have precedence over it. To involve such a body in civil proceedings is inherently foolish.

Perfectly true - I am just saying that it can have all the splendor that some people need and the religious belief satisfied too - legally, nothing more. Remember the thing that religious people need is to be married in the eyes of God and act according to their beliefs. Legal or not, the married couple should be following their religious vowels for that is what they signed up for, not the legal process. I don't think it's not complicated. It's still a seperate issue, why make it longer by having it repeated elsewhere?

[Guest]

Some religions you can not remarry unless your parner is deceased/beheaded (H.VII) and others not at all - it's not all about christianity. Also a religious wedding is not recognised as legal (for some strange reason - a matter of stile, extra singing etc as well the witnessing is the same -location location location)

LMAO at that! As long as beheading's an option, that's all you need isn't it? At least you don't have to deal with messy divorce proceedings (nothing that a mop and bucket wouldnt take care of, anyhow)

Oh man, that made me laugh so hard. I got to think some of my previous breakups would have been much simpler if beheading was an option...the I'd have to call octopuppy for the mop and bucket.

I find it quite bizarre that people say being gay is not natural or against human nature. Where's the justification for that?

Homosexuality is documented in ancient history all over the world, and occurs frequently within other species as well, including those most closely related to humans. If that isn't an indication of something being natural (and human nature) I don't know what is.

And if it isn't natural, what is it then? A fashion statement?

It's a sad homophobic view that seeks to distance your own nature from the nature of gay people. Really, why so much fear?

No, not a fashion statement, it's a few individuals wanting to protest against the status quo of strauightness in the world *note: EXTREME sarcasm*

Nice perspective!

In the Netherlands you religious wedding does not count in its own right - you have to register as well. I think is't a waste of time to do two - Why two, should not the rule be that whichever religion you marry by, that the legal right is automatically applied. So long as the church are stating that it applies when the couple are requesting religious ceremony. Unfortunately the divorce does not work the same way.

Why two? It gives you a chance to back out if you change your mind after the initial wedding

Divorce is a ridiculous matter. Lawyers even worse. My aunt and uncle just recently, OK a year ago, got divorced after being married about 16 years. All they wanted was a simple divorce. My uncle was happy to give her his Jaguar, house, and half the money. And my aunt was fine with letting him have some of the more sentimental things from their marriage. However, my uncle's lawyer was ridiculous, telling him that he needed to fight for more, to get more money from my aunt and to not let her keep the house. When I found this out was said to myself , "Seriously?" I don't see lawyers whispering to the groom during the weddings to settle deals on who does what chore around the house, who makes the money, etc.

[Guest]

Oh man, that made me laugh so hard. I got to think some of my previous breakups would have been much simpler if beheading was an option...the I'd have to call octopuppy for the mop and bucket.

Why do I get to be the mop and bucket man? I'm good with an axe, or a samurai sword if that's more your style.

Divorce is a ridiculous matter. Lawyers even worse. My aunt and uncle just recently, OK a year ago, got divorced after being married about 16 years. All they wanted was a simple divorce. My uncle was happy to give her his Jaguar, house, and half the money. And my aunt was fine with letting him have some of the more sentimental things from their marriage. However, my uncle's lawyer was ridiculous, telling him that he needed to fight for more, to get more money from my aunt and to not let her keep the house.

That's what they do. The scumbags just want to make work for themselves. You can bet he plays golf with the other lawyer who's winding up the other party, and they both have a good laugh about how they are screwing the pair of them over. They do the same with house purchases. All you want is to make it official but they keep trying to invent spanners to throw in the works *Insert lawyer joke of choice*

But on a different note, since some churches recognise divorces, why don't they have church divorce ceremonies? If the marriage happened in the eyes of God the divorce better had too, otherwise there's going to be all kinds of trouble when they re-marry. Here is a suggested ceremony:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today in the sight of God to separate this man and woman in a state of Unholy Divorce. Should there be anyone who has cause why this couple should stay married, they must speak now or forever hold their peace. (Awkward silence. The Minister may choose to prolong this at his pleasure.)

Who is it that takes this woman from this man?

(The wife's best friend who never liked her husband, or her new lover, may take the wife away. They answer "I do", "I do on behalf of everybody who cares about her" etc., This person then steps back and looks daggers at the husband)

____________________ and _______________________ , life is given to each of us as individuals. Sometimes in our folly we try to live together. You live and learn.

(Groom) ___________________, do you take ________________ to be your ex-Wife? ("I do") Do you promise to love, honor and cherish others, forsaking her? ("Oh yes!")

(Bride) _____________________, do you take __________________ to be your ex-Husband? ("I do") Do you promise to ...etc... ("I do")

Wedding rings are an outward and visible sign of an inner hell and the unending circle of indifference, resentment, and bitter reprisals, signifying the shackles that keep you from living your life.

(Rings are then exchanged by removing them from the ring finger and throwing them at the other party)

(Groom) I _____________, take thee , ________________ to be my ex-Wife. To exchange for a younger model, for half of everything, and I promise to regret my marriage to you forevermore.

(Bride) I _________________ , take thee _______________, to be my ex-Husband. To despise and to hold responsible for wasting the best years of my life, and I promise to make you pay forevermore.

I now pronounce you: Man, and Woman.

(If there are children, sometimes both parents will give gifts to the child and say a short statement that they are not to trust the other parent.)

O God, who hast taught us that it should never be lawful to put asunder those whom thou by Matrimony hadst made one, and hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual marriage and unity betwixt Christ and his Church: Therefore look mercifully upon these sinners, who hath thrown aside thy holy law and shall in all probability burn in hell for it. Now let us all pray for their souls, that through the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord they may be spared the damnation they truly deserve.

[andromeda]

Hahahaha... octopuppy you rock!

About the church marriage. I think you can marry in church only once, but there's a clever catch that I read about in the book "Ararat" by Lajos Zilahi (or was it "The Purple Century" ?) Anywho... there it says that before the church wedding ceremony, your mother in law should slap you in the face (gently of course) so if you ever want to get divorced and if you ever want to divorce in the eyes of God you should just tell your priest that you were forced into that marriage (hence the symbolic cheek slap) and after that if you decide to get married again and have a church ceremony you can!

Edited December 15, 2008 by andromeda

[unreality]

haha octopuppy, that's hilarious

as for the lawyer part - hehe our very own Brandonb is a lawyer ;D Better not get too vile here

[Guest]

Sorry Brandonb. Hey, look on the bright side, there's worse kinds of parasite than lawyers (the Amazonian candiru for instance, or the Italian notaio).

[Guest]

haha octopuppy, that's hilarious

as for the lawyer part - hehe our very own Brandonb is a lawyer ;D Better not get too vile here

Haha, but he's a Braindenzien so he's alright in my book.

[Guest]

Okay... First off... I am glad to finally be a member of brainden... second off...

I don't agree with alot that you are saying... I am a conservative catholic, but I also respect others views... I think that Gay marriage should be left up to the couples, and they shouldn't be stopped by a silly rule, but as for some of the things...

a) Your little remark about abolishing churchs is VERY disrespectful. what if everyone was forced to go to church? how would that make you feel?

b) I feel very disrespected by what you are saying about atheists are anti church. I have multiple friends that are athiest, and they all respect my veiws and i respect their views... you don't see a Christan going anti-atheist.

c) Libral does NOT mean that you are for the state and against the church.

I think that your argument is flawed becuse you have put this as a state vs. church in which it is NOT the case...

Actually, you'd be suprised about how many religious people have degraded and disrespected atheism. We have been stereotyped as "heathens" or "Satan-Worshipers" because we do not believe in your god.

All religions are part atheism, normal atheists have taken it one god further.

[Guest]

Actually, you'd be suprised about how many religious people have degraded and disrespected atheism. We have been stereotyped as "heathens" or "Satan-Worshipers" because we do not believe in your god.

All religions are part atheism, normal atheists have taken it one god further.

I'm sorry, but religious or atheist these statements are fairly offensive towards religious individuals. I don't think I've seen "heathen" or "Satan worshiper" mentioned here, so I believe you're going beyond what's justified in this conversation. He's asked you to stop being disrespectful, that was pretty much it. I imagine you don't view the statement as being disrespectful, and I can understand why you wouldn't. Maybe explaining that would be a good response. However, going "you're implying that others who believe the same as you are, by definition, not rude to people with my beliefs. I have observed this to be wrong. Therefore, allow me to follow up one statement that is arguably disrespectful with another that is definitively so."

This, normally, is why I avoid participating in religious conversations. There are individuals on both sides who are, without a doubt, disrespectful towards the other side. The fact that they exist shouldn't be used as an excuse to become one of them.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, but religious or atheist these statements are fairly offensive towards religious individuals. I don't think I've seen "heathen" or "Satan worshiper" mentioned here, so I believe you're going beyond what's justified in this conversation. He's asked you to stop being disrespectful, that was pretty much it. I imagine you don't view the statement as being disrespectful, and I can understand why you wouldn't. Maybe explaining that would be a good response. However, going "you're implying that others who believe the same as you are, by definition, not rude to people with my beliefs. I have observed this to be wrong. Therefore, allow me to follow up one statement that is arguably disrespectful with another that is definitively so."

This, normally, is why I avoid participating in religious conversations. There are individuals on both sides who are, without a doubt, disrespectful towards the other side. The fact that they exist shouldn't be used as an excuse to become one of them.

Exactly...

What I meant by it was that both sides have degraded each other equally, and that neither had any reason for it.

Religious debates are usually always bad, one way or another someone is going to bring up a point that offends the other side and it becomes war.