Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion/Politics

Gay marriage

Old 02-14-05, 08:47 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milford
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gay marriage

heh heh, just by that title, I'm sure to get lots of responses here.

ok, I wanna hear some responses here.

Here's my reasoning: Marriage (the title, not the rights) have their roots with the Jews, very religiously themed. I understand that the gay community wants marriage, but is it the title or the rights that come with it do you want? Personally, I'm against gay marriage, and for this reason:

From the arguments I've heard, the primary reason for gay marriage is the rights inherent in the title, gays want hereditary rights, visitation, partner benefits, etc . . . I believe they should have these things, same as married straight couples; my problem arises because marriage itself is religious, I believe that the title of marriage should be reserved for straight marriages, and why can't civil unions with full rights be enough? I really don't have any problem with gays, but I do appreciate traditions to an extent. Why hasn't anyone proposed full rights, just with a different title than marriage - call it anything you want, just slap a title on it other than marriage.

What you the gays here think of this?

Note: Please DON'T be partisan here - I've had enough politics from the damn presidential election, I'm just trying to see an alternate point of view here - please don't flame!
Old 02-14-05, 08:53 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,633
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here we go again ...

I'm sure others will chime in shortly, so let me briefly say this: marriage is not the invention of Jews; most societies have had some form of marriage. And while, for the last several millenia, civil marriage and religious marriage have been bound together, that hasn't been the case in this country for some time. You can get a civil marriage without getting a religious marriage (get married at city hall), and you can get a religious marriage without a civil marriage (several denominations perform gay marriages that aren't recognized by the state).

As for your "separate but equal" idea, it's as lame as any other time we've tried separate but equal. If you want to scrap civil marriage altogether and replace it with a civil union available to all couples -- gay or straight -- then I'm all for it. But the idea that when Steve and Suzie Straight get married by their pastor they should be considered married in the eyes of Mayor Quimby, but when Greg and Gary Gay get married by their pastor they should be considered civilly united in the eyes of Mayor Quimby -- well, that's just silly.
Old 02-14-05, 08:54 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mopower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Janitor's closet in Kinnick Stadium
Posts: 15,726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Or....

here

here

here

here

here

here
Old 02-14-05, 08:55 PM
  #4  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, the OP is arguing that only Jews should be married? Oy vey!
Old 02-14-05, 08:58 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The land of chocolate
Posts: 6,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If marriage is of Jewish origin, then why is it OK for Christians to marry? Why, also, does the (secular) law prohibit multiple marriages if it's solely a religious thing? Why does it have state laws and statutes regarding marriage if it's religious? Why, for many purposes (including immigration), do states not recognise common law marriages, yet recognise marriage?

While it may once have been of Jewish origin (I can't confirm that - just working on Chaos' comments), it's not anymore. It's a state recognised union - in a country where religion and law are not supposed to be tied together.

Hence, the concept of marriage IS about full rights and the term is IMO just as important as the concepts it represents. Anything less is unacceptable if you do want equal rights for all unions.
Old 02-14-05, 09:03 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 7,466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by naughty jonny
If marriage is of Jewish origin, then why is it OK for Christians to marry?
Because Christians are of Jewish origin, too!
Old 02-14-05, 09:04 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milford
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yet through all this idealism of church and state accepting gay marriage, you're all forgetting one thing: churches are NOT going to accept gay marriage, only the state is. So while marriage may have originated in religious contexts, today it is wholly the realm of the state (with teh exception of the episcopalians, who almsot split their church over the issue).
I don't see this as segregation, I see it as trying to reach a compromise that neither side will reject outright.

So my question still stands - what's wrong with something that has all the rights, privileges, benefits etc. . . of marriage but a different label?
Old 02-14-05, 09:05 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The land of chocolate
Posts: 6,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by talemyn
Because Christians are of Jewish origin, too!
Try telling that to a Catholic...or even worse, call a Jew a Christian and see what he does
Old 02-14-05, 09:05 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whoa, I can't believe this topic has never come up here before. I think someone should mention that gay marriage is most definately a slippery slope towards people marrying their pets, incest, and polygamy.
Old 02-14-05, 09:06 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,633
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chaos
yet through all this idealism of church and state accepting gay marriage, you're all forgetting one thing: churches are NOT going to accept gay marriage, only the state is. So while marriage may have originated in religious contexts, today it is wholly the realm of the state (with teh exception of the episcopalians, who almsot split their church over the issue).
I don't see this as segregation, I see it as trying to reach a compromise that neither side will reject outright.

So my question still stands - what's wrong with something that has all the rights, privileges, benefits etc. . . of marriage but a different label?
You're displaying your ignorance. The Episcopilian Church is not the only church that recognizes gay marriage.

Moreover, if you are going to concede that marriage is wholly the relam of the state, I think the onus is on you to explain why the state should discriminate between straight couples and gay couples. You call it a compromise; I wonder why gay couples should have to compromise away their right to call themselves married couples. What do they get in return? The privileges and benefits they would have anyway but for the state's discrimination?
Old 02-14-05, 09:07 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The land of chocolate
Posts: 6,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chaos
So while marriage may have originated in religious contexts, today it is wholly the realm of the state.
There. You've said it yourself. Was that too hard? If it's wholly the realm of the state, then what's the problem?
Old 02-14-05, 09:09 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chaos
Why hasn't anyone proposed full rights, just with a different title than marriage - call it anything you want, just slap a title on it other than marriage.
Yeah, you're the first guy to think of Civil Unions.
Old 02-14-05, 09:09 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The land of chocolate
Posts: 6,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
Whoa, I can't believe this topic has never come up here before. I think someone should mention that gay marriage is most definately a slippery slope towards people marrying their pets, incest, and polygamy.
I have no problem with people marrying their pets, sister or many people. That's perfectly normal, and I don't think there is anyone on this board who would have a problem with it.

But what happens when someone wants to marry both their dog and their cat and the dog is the cat's sister?
Old 02-14-05, 09:10 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milford
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JasonF - if you're going to get in my face about it, I'll respond with this: you say why should gay's have to compromise their rights? why should the church have to accept something they don't want to? They've held their beliefs out in the open for thousands of years, its only recently that the views have come under fire. A compromise is a deal in which neither side is completely satisfied, yet it is a deal that meets both parties needs to a satisfiable extent.

edit: please keep this civil, I'm not here for a fight, just a discourse and exchange of views.

Last edited by Chaos; 02-14-05 at 09:13 PM.
Old 02-14-05, 09:14 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chaos
JasonF - if you're going to get in my face about it, I'll respond with this: you say why should gay's have to compromise their rights? why should the church have to accept something they don't want to?
The church isn't having to compromise at all. People can get married in front of a judge. Nobody is forcing churches to marry off people they don't want to. Many churches are already exclusive in who they will allow to be married there.
Old 02-14-05, 09:16 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milford
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yes, I agree, so if churches will not accept marriage, why must the title of marriage, a religious rooted word, be used to describe something that the state administers?
Old 02-14-05, 09:20 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The land of chocolate
Posts: 6,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
The church isn't having to compromise at all. People can get married in front of a judge. Nobody is forcing churches to marry off people they don't want to.
Exactly. And when you look at some of the hetrosexual marriages we've seen lately (you know, the ones that show us how important an institution marriage is), you have to start to wonder if gays can show us what we're doing wrong.

In the 21st century, an official marriage isn't religious anyway. We can get married in a church; we can get married by a preacher. But if the celebrant isn't recognised by the state, then we aren't legally married.

These days, legally, the religious aspect of marriage is only the flavor surrounding the state-legal nutty goodness at its core.
Old 02-14-05, 09:21 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chaos
yes, I agree, so if churches will not accept marriage, why must the title of marriage, a religious rooted word, be used to describe something that the state administers?
It already is. Ever been to Vegas? Most of those wedding aren't exactly what you would call religious. But hey, we could call it "civil unions."

That doesn't change the issue or any of the laws that passed this year in many states.

I personally would prefer the term "civil unions" any way when it comes to state-sponsored unions (heterosexual or not). Leave marriage for the churches where it has some meaning.
Old 02-14-05, 09:23 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Jam Master Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hope I don't catch teh gay by posting in this thread
Old 02-14-05, 09:23 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,633
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chaos
JasonF - if you're going to get in my face about it, I'll respond with this: you say why should gay's have to compromise their rights? why should the church have to accept something they don't want to? They've held their beliefs out in the open for thousands of years, its only recently that the views have come under fire. A compromise is a deal in which neither side is completely satisfied, yet it is a deal that meets both parties needs to a satisfiable extent.

edit: please keep this civil, I'm not here for a fight, just a discourse and exchange of views.
"The church" (whatever church that may be) doesn't have to accept anything. I'll give you an example from my own life -- I am Jewish, born and raised. My wife is Jewish, but she converted to Judaism. She converted as a Conservative Jew, and she and I were married in a Conservative Synagogue.

Now, the Orthodox Jewish movement does not recognize my wife's conversion, because the Conservative movement is not up to their rigorous standards. So in their eyes, my wife is not a Jew. Consequently, in the eyes of the Orthodox movement, she and I are not married, because the attempt to marry a non-Jew would have no effect.

For all I know, we're not married in the eyes of the Catholic Church, either, since neither of us is Catholic and, as I understand it, Catholics view marriage as a sacrement that can only be performed between two Catholics.

None of this is any skin off my nose. The Orthodox Jewish movement, the Catholic Church, and the Church of the Subgenius are all entitled to their opinions. The fact that my wife and I have a marriage certificate on file in some county courthouse doesn't seem to change their mind. And you know what? That's their perogative. If the Church of the Sacred Pink Panther wants to define marriage as a holy union between a man, a woman, and a bumbling French detective, that's it's business. We're talking about how the state defines marriage.

And once we focus on that -- once we realize that talk about church and religion is a red herring -- the answer should be easy. Why should the state discriminate against gays? There's no reason, and asking gays to compromise sits with me about as well as telling blacks "OK, why don't we let you sit in the back and the middle of the bus. How's that for a compromise, guys?"

As for being in your face, my apologies. I think I'm coming down with the flu -- my back and my legs are aching, and that's how it started for my wife last week. Plus, I'm trying to write a business letter and it's just not coming together like it should. So if I'm taking it out on you, please accept my apologies. I'll try not to let it keep happening.
Old 02-14-05, 09:24 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milford
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
missing point: gays get divorced too (in fact, the first custody battle has begun in a gay marriage (I forget the article)). but still, I believe gays should have all the things marriage brings, just please rename it something else - that's all. same thing as marriage, just a different label. I don't think it's 'separate but equal' because we're not talking about facilities, we're only talking about who recognzies a ceremony.

Last edited by Chaos; 02-14-05 at 09:30 PM.
Old 02-14-05, 09:25 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jam Master Jay
I hope I don't catch teh gay by posting in this thread
Too late. You will receive your membership card in 4-6 weeks.
Old 02-14-05, 09:25 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,633
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chaos
yes, I agree, so if churches will not accept marriage, why must the title of marriage, a religious rooted word, be used to describe something that the state administers?
Because it is. Every local government in this country hands out "Marriage Licenses." If they want to scrap those and start handing out "Civil Union Licenses" to both gay and straight couples, then I'm all in favor of that. But as long as there's one form for the straights and a different form for the gays, it strikes me as unfair and arbitrarily discriminatory.
Old 02-14-05, 09:26 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chaos
but still, I believe gays should have all the things marriage brings, just please rename it something else - that's all. same thing as marriage, just a different label.
Have you heard the term "civil union" before? Should that be the end of this thread?
Old 02-14-05, 09:28 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The land of chocolate
Posts: 6,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
Too late. You will receive your membership card in 4-6 weeks.
Is this like a membership drive...

"Dear Thor,

"My friend said that his mother made him a homosexual. I was wondering...if I gave her the wool, could she make me one too?"

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.