I don't have a problem with that. But I have a couple of questions about it. When they're getting married, who is the bride? I mean, when the guy marrying 'em goes "now you can kiss the bride", is it previously arranged? Or I pronounce you husband and husband?
Isn't it i pronounce you husband and wife followed by you may now kiss the bride. Not that i've ever been to a church wedding.sergeriver wrote:
I don't have a problem with that. But I have a couple of questions about it. When they're getting married, who is the bride? I mean, when the guy marrying 'em goes "now you can kiss the bride", is it previously arranged? Or I pronounce you husband and husband?
BTW Did you have a jewish wedding?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Nothing religious, just a civil court. And that's becuase my wife wanted, I would have continued without papers, if you know what I mean. Now half of my car is hers too, lol.m3thod wrote:
Isn't it i pronounce you husband and wife followed by you may now kiss the bride. Not that i've ever been to a church wedding.sergeriver wrote:
I don't have a problem with that. But I have a couple of questions about it. When they're getting married, who is the bride? I mean, when the guy marrying 'em goes "now you can kiss the bride", is it previously arranged? Or I pronounce you husband and husband?
BTW Did you have a jewish wedding?
If people want some kind of union with another - who cares?
What I care about is gays demanding the 'right' to certain things which are intended to help people create families, like tax breaks, subsidies, rights at work etc.
I don't get a tax break if my sister decides not to work, for example.
Gays should get no more rights or funding from other taxpayer to fund their weird pseudo-coupledom.
Plus when they get some kind of 'marriage' set up they will the campaign for the 'right' to children by whatever means.
What I care about is gays demanding the 'right' to certain things which are intended to help people create families, like tax breaks, subsidies, rights at work etc.
I don't get a tax break if my sister decides not to work, for example.
Gays should get no more rights or funding from other taxpayer to fund their weird pseudo-coupledom.
Plus when they get some kind of 'marriage' set up they will the campaign for the 'right' to children by whatever means.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I have no idea what US law is, but what tax breaks do married people get over single people or non married couples? Because as far as I know in Australia you get nothing from the government for just being married.Dilbert_X wrote:
If people want some kind of union with another - who cares?
What I care about is gays demanding the 'right' to certain things which are intended to help people create families, like tax breaks, subsidies, rights at work etc.
I don't get a tax break if my sister decides not to work, for example.
Gays should get no more rights or funding from other taxpayer to fund their weird pseudo-coupledom.
Plus when they get some kind of 'marriage' set up they will the campaign for the 'right' to children by whatever means.
well, what if a gay or a lesbian couple choses to adopt a homeless child, thereby creating a family and a possible future taxpayer ? Shouldn't they have access to the same privileges that "regular" married couples have ?Dilbert_X wrote:
If people want some kind of union with another - who cares?
What I care about is gays demanding the 'right' to certain things which are intended to help people create families, like tax breaks, subsidies, rights at work etc.
And what about those married heterosexual couples who do not plan to have children ? I mean, just because you're married doesn't mean that you're going to have children, does it ?
Maybe we could move away from the term "marriage" when we talk about certain privileges that come with a "legalized" union. Marriage is a religious term, and should only be used in those cases where people actually step in front of a priest and say the magic words.
That is why, in germany, we have two "marriages". One which is performed in church, but has no legal meaning as far the state is concerned, and the "official" state wedding ceremony, which takes place before a state official ( this includes the signing of a couple of documents for the IRS, new passports and ID's in case there is a name change, all the official stuff ).
Only the state marriage certificate will grant you the tax brakes and stuff, the church wedding is only for religious purposes and those who enjoy a white dress and all of that.
two separate systems = two separate ceremonies, each with different ramifications.
I guess the reason why gay and lesbian activists are so eager to have their civil union called "marriages" is that they feel it is the only way to grant them acceptance by society, and make their union equal to a religious ceremony.
I can understand that, but I still think it's stupid. If a "civil union" between homosexuals grants them the same rights, privileges, and bestowes the same duties on them, as a "marriage" between a heterosexual couple will, why make such a fuss about the terminology ?
The churches would never agree to that anyway.
Of course, I don't know what the situation is like in the US. Does a wedding certificate from a church/priest have legal implications or is there a separate wedding certificate from the state ?
It shouldn't be allowed because it goes against everything the bible preaches..
EDIT: I for one find that disgusting
EDIT: I for one find that disgusting
Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2008-01-18 04:50:10)
actually religion and marriage have been closely tied throughout historyPureFodder wrote:
I have a question, why does anyone care what religions think of marriage? The idea of marriage pre-dates any current popular religion and therefore has absolutely nothing to do with them. Just because religions hijacked an already existing idea doesn't mean they suddenly get to have any say over it.
Society gets to choose what defines a marriage, not religion.
Then its up to them to sort it out with the church, not the govt.I guess the reason why gay and lesbian activists are so eager to have their civil union called "marriages" is that they feel it is the only way to grant them acceptance by society, and make their union equal to a religious ceremony.
It varies country by country, I'll look it up for Australia. If you start a family in Aus there are loads of tax subsidies - the 'baby bonus' for one.I have no idea what US law is, but what tax breaks do married people get over single people or non married couples? Because as far as I know in Australia you get nothing from the government for just being married.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
It shouldn't even be an issue for the government, it should be an issue of the church.
Separation of church and state anyone? The government shouldn't force the churches to do something that they are against, let each church decide for themselves.
Separation of church and state anyone? The government shouldn't force the churches to do something that they are against, let each church decide for themselves.
Religions are not being forced to do anything. That has never been an issue. It should be an issue for the government, not any church.PBAsydney wrote:
It shouldn't even be an issue for the government, it should be an issue of the church.
Separation of church and state anyone? The government shouldn't force the churches to do something that they are against, let each church decide for themselves.
As an example, no Canadian church has been forced to marry a homosexual in the past several years of legal gay marriages.
Okay I feel I should explain my reasoning a little more, lest this thread go further offtopic. My intention behind bringing religion into the discussion was to prove that there can be such a thing as a nonreligious marriage, and thus the 'objection on religious grounds' is irrelevent, as a gay couple could simply have a nonreligious marriage.
If churches/temples/entire religions/etc wanted to say "no gay marriages under our banner" rather than "no gay marriages at all, not even nonreligious ones", that would be completely different, they'd be free to do that as much as they wish.
If churches/temples/entire religions/etc wanted to say "no gay marriages under our banner" rather than "no gay marriages at all, not even nonreligious ones", that would be completely different, they'd be free to do that as much as they wish.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with getting married. You receive that and all other benefits for having children if you're married, de facto or single. In fact you get more tax breaks and bonuses if you are single. You also get the same 'child support' if you adopt. There is no specific tax cut or government bonus/aid to getting married, so unless the US is different that entire side of the argument is irrelevant.Dilbert_X wrote:
It varies country by country, I'll look it up for Australia. If you start a family in Aus there are loads of tax subsidies - the 'baby bonus' for one.I have no idea what US law is, but what tax breaks do married people get over single people or non married couples? Because as far as I know in Australia you get nothing from the government for just being married.
I would agree with that, the problem is that "marriage" is a religious term per se. To the churches, a "marriage" is always a religious ceremony, part of their heritage, and given their stance on gay/lesbian relationships, it is highly unlikely that the churches will allow "their" term to be used.Pubic wrote:
Okay I feel I should explain my reasoning a little more, lest this thread go further offtopic. My intention behind bringing religion into the discussion was to prove that there can be such a thing as a nonreligious marriage, and thus the 'objection on religious grounds' is irrelevent, as a gay couple could simply have a nonreligious marriage.
If churches/temples/entire religions/etc wanted to say "no gay marriages under our banner" rather than "no gay marriages at all, not even nonreligious ones", that would be completely different, they'd be free to do that as much as they wish.
Because if they did, they would effectively sanction that union. Obviously, that's never going to happen.
From the churches point of view, there can be no non-religious "marriage", and any union that doesn't fit their definition of what a "marriage" is, can never be called so, at least not with their blessing.
With that being said, it is obvious that the term has transpired into common language and is used today by everyone to refer to people who are in a legally sanctioned life relationship, even if they're not religiously "married".
The solution would be for the states to come up with a term that describes those who are "legally" married, i.e. in a state-reckognized relationship, and thereby differentiate from those who are "married" by the church definition.
But as I said, common usage. I bet my ass that in some states, there isn't even a separate term for that. Most codified laws will speak of "marriage", I suppose.
Its not a tradition. Slavery happens when people from one race is too lazy to work for themselves and have another race work for them.RedTwizzler wrote:
Know what else was a tradition? Slavery. But we seem to have gotten past that.konfusion wrote:
I'm against it. It's marriage, and it's a tradition - between men and women. I don't care what they call it - just not marriage. And I think they should have every right that a married couple has, except to adopt children.
Yes, I'm conservative in that way.
-konfusion
There is nothing wrong with gay marriages. What is it you are afraid of, that someone might actually turn this pathetic institution into something other than a tar pit of spousal abuse, slander, financial ruin, adultery, lies, and mud slinging divorces that the "religious" hold so dear to their hearts?
Even I can not deny that, that seems to sum up American historical tradition pretty damned wellThe#1Spot wrote:
Its not a tradition. Slavery happens when people from one race is too lazy to work for themselves and have another race work for them.RedTwizzler wrote:
Know what else was a tradition? Slavery. But we seem to have gotten past that.konfusion wrote:
I'm against it. It's marriage, and it's a tradition - between men and women. I don't care what they call it - just not marriage. And I think they should have every right that a married couple has, except to adopt children.
Yes, I'm conservative in that way.
-konfusion