Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ming]

If you really look at it... it's the STATE that grants the churches the right to perform weddings... without permission from the state, a religion can't perform a wedding that will be recogonized by the state. Why the relgious folks think they have "ownership' of marriage or the name marriage is beyond me. The claim that only they should be able to perform something called marriage is just plain silly. Especially considering that all religions don't even agree on this subject.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Since you want some status for civil means... for tax reasons, benefits... etc.

Respectfully, such rights and obligations have nothing to do with obtaining a prior license before "marriage." In Kalifornia, all one has to do is "register" the relationship. The state has no authority to deny or prevent people from forming the relationship in the first place.

In other words, if you need a license, the state may deny it.

Why would they deny it?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


Kontiki, community property is that property "earned" during a marriage. With multiple partners, the latecomer would only get a share of the communal property created after the date of marriage.

It is not that complicated.

Not quite, although you do have something of a point. The formula for determining it would be rather complex.

Still, you have the issue of granting the divorce in the first place. Do all four have to agree? What if one doesn't?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ming
If you really look at it... it's the STATE that grants the churches the right to perform weddings... without permission from the state, a religion can't perform a wedding that will be recogonized by the state. Why the relgious folks think they have "ownership' of marriage or the name marriage is beyond me. The claim that only they should be able to perform something called marriage is just plain silly. Especially considering that all religions don't even agree on this subject.

Its become a common fallacy... however. Better to isolate the issue to an irrelevancy, than to try and change a commonly held fallacy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming
If you really look at it... it's the STATE that grants the churches the right to perform weddings... without permission from the state, a religion can't perform a wedding that will be recogonized by the state. Why the relgious folks think they have "ownership' of marriage or the name marriage is beyond me. The claim that only they should be able to perform something called marriage is just plain silly. Especially considering that all religions don't even agree on this subject.

I don't know what the prior practice of the Roman Empire was - but it was St. Paul who began the practice of religious ceremonies for Christians.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, you seem to be arguing now against marriage per se which is inconsistent with an argument that we should allow gay marriages.

Not at all. Firstly I am not arguing against marriage, rather I am saying that its reasons for keeping couples together do not equate to stability, and thus a healthy environment for children.

Secondly that deals with the consequential side of the argument, whereas while that is pretty strong imho, the intentional side is strongest, where one says that marriage is a right that does not impede upon other people, therefore it should be legalised. The premises for that are contained above.

You do this by saying that any legally imposed obligations on a domestic partner to stay in the relationship is disfavored.

I never said it was unfavourable, I said it is not conducive to stability if this is the only thing keeping a marriage together, whereby an equivalent non-married couple would break up. I would not want to be a kid in that house!

However, that is exactly what marriage brings with it. Today, gay and lesbian couples can split with ease with virtually no lingering obligations to their partner. This never happens with "the divorces" because there are continuing obligations of support and there are division of property issues to be considered. There may be also issues involving custody of children.

The battle for gay marriages is not only a battle of rights. There are significant obligations involved in marriages that tend to keep couples together because the cost of separation is so high.

Maybe so, but that does not mean stability as has been iterated several times before, and children raised in such an unpleasant household are going to suffer. It is not a pleasant experience believe me.

Thats a strawman argument.

Precisely.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Not quite, although you do have something of a point. The formula for determining it would be rather complex.

Still, you have the issue of granting the divorce in the first place. Do all four have to agree? What if one doesn't?

Divorce is a right.

Division of property, continuing support and child custody are legal proceedings that are part of the separation process.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't know what the prior practice of the Roman Empire was - but it was St. Paul who began the practice of religious ceremonies for Christians.

So... the Jewish faith was performing marriages long before that. Your point? The Christians showed up late in the game

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Beats me - that your arguement.

Not at all. I am happy with any non-governmental body performing a "marriage" and calling it that, including any gay rights groups, any social club or any religious movement. You were the one who seemed to bring up the restriction to religious groups.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Respectfully, such rights and obligations have nothing to do with obtaining a prior license before "marriage." In Kalifornia, all one has to do is "register" the relationship. The state has no authority to deny or prevent people from forming the relationship in the first place.

In other words, if you need a license, the state may deny it.

Why would they deny it?

The standard of states differ. California is usually pretty liberal.

Also, and its been mentioned before, the issue is largely a federal one rather than a state one... therefore the decision of a single state isn't helpful in this regard.

[Whaleboy]

So... the Jewish faith was performing marriages long before that. Your point? The Christians showed up late in the game

True, but even more... I think it was the Hindus! And iirc they allowed polygamy!!

Everyone has me on ignore except Ned...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Not at all. I am happy with any non-governmental body performing a "marriage" and calling it that, including any gay rights groups, any social club or any religious movement. You were the one who seemed to bring up the restriction to religious groups.

The central problem I have is why any state would require a formal license and a formal ceremony to make valid a marriage contract between two people.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Not at all. I am happy with any non-governmental body performing a "marriage" and calling it that, including any gay rights groups, any social club or any religious movement. You were the one who seemed to bring up the restriction to religious groups.

That's a big change from...

I am against gay marriage. Mainly because there is no such thing. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, so two gay men can never be married.

Why don't you homosexual gentlemen go find your own word for your "unions" and leave ours alone.

So which is it

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You were the one who seemed to bring up the restriction to religious groups.

WHAT???

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
he point was that I don't want the state to recognise the union of two gay people as a 'marriage'. Since the word 'marriage' has religious conotations, I believe that should be left up to the church

I believe you're being economical with the truth.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


The central problem I have is why any state would require a formal license and a formal ceremony to make valid a marriage contract between two people.

They are separate conceptually... and I think rightly so.

I think its justified in the seperation of church and state clause.

[Rogan Josh]

It is not a change at all.

I will not consider two gay men as "married" just like I don't consider the USA as "the land of the free". They can call themselves whatever they like as long as a government which is supposed to represent me does not sanction their opinion over mine.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I believe you're being economical with the truth.

What have you been smoking....?

[Whaleboy]

RJ: You can call them whatever the hell you want, but in terms of how the state recognises marriage/civil unions, I do not see a discernable difference, and you as one subjective do not have the logical right to impose your views regarding definition upon another.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


The standard of states differ. California is usually pretty liberal.

Also, and its been mentioned before, the issue is largely a federal one rather than a state one... therefore the decision of a single state isn't helpful in this regard.

Tell me one state that forbids people from living together in a stable relationship regardless of formalities?

As to the Federal issue, we have the DoMA which prevents the Feds from recognizing "marriages" except those between one man and one woman. However, that act does not apply to domestic partnerships per se. In other words, Kalifornia domestic partners may already have all the rights that any married couple have.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


WHAT???



I believe you're being economical with the truth.

I'll just call it flat-out lying.

Why would you want to forbid non-religious institutions from performing marriages?

Is the government not a non-religious institution?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
*SNIP*

a government which is supposed to represent me

Oh... I see... its the government specifically for Rogan Josh... not for the people collectively.

Thanks for clearing that up, since you're the final arbiter of whats good and right {/sarcasm off}

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


They are separate conceptually... and I think rightly so.

I think its justified in the seperation of church and state clause.

Mr.Baggins, just in case you do not understand me, I am asking why two people cannot get married by simply agreeing to marry each other and then registering their marriage with the state?

[Kontiki]

Also, where did I bring up a restriction to religious groups? Your the one that wants to place restrictions on what the government will and will not recognize.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Oh... I see... its the government specifically for Rogan Josh... not for the people collectively.

Thanks for clearing that up, since you're the final arbiter of whats good and right {/sarcasm off}

So you don't think I have the right to an opinion on the matter now? Would you like to have the right to vote removed if part of a religious group?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Tell me one state that forbids people from living together in a stable relationship regardless of formalities?

As to the Federal issue, we have the DoMA which prevents the Feds from recognizing "marriages" except those between one man and one woman. However, that act does not apply to domestic partnerships per se. In other words, Kalifornia domestic partner may already have all the rights that any married couple have.

There are specific benefits given to married couples that aren't given to couples merely living together in a stable relationship... except for certain states that provide for common-in-law marriage (except that typically doesn't extend to homosexuals.)

Its true that there are legal inconsistencies right now, and I guess the state courts and eventually the federal courts will need to sort out these issues.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


So you don't think I have the right to an opinion on the matter now? Would you like to have the right to vote removed if part of a religious group?

You have the right to any spoken or written opinion that you wish*. As does everyone else, including gays. You alone do not define "the people".

* that does not infringe the civil liberties and rights of other citizens or incite others in that manner.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Quote:

*SNIP*economic with the truth

What have you been smoking....?

It's a diplomatic or political way of saying that someone is lying... Not that you'd know diplomacy or tact if it hit you.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Mr.Baggins, just in case you do not understand me, I am asking why two people cannot get married by simply agreeing to marry each other and then registering their marriage with the state?

The states each have their own ways of dealing with this, and in many ways, they are. The important question remains the federal issue, particularly with the "equal and fair representation" credo, and there being no fair representation with unfair taxation... essentially the founding principal of the country.

[Elok]

Huh...Ming, did you vote in my "Civil Unions for all" poll? If so, which way? Obviously you aren't against gay unions, I'm just wondering if you think my idea was a decent compromise. You seem to be a hermit-type debater, occasionally issuing out of your cave to tell somebody he's being stupid but otherwise staying silent...except for official moderator duties 'n'stuff. You might say I'm curious about the man behind the malevolent avatar.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


There are specific benefits given to married couples that aren't given to couples merely living together in a stable relationship... except for certain states that provide for common-in-law marriage (except that typically doesn't extend to homosexuals.)

Its true that there are legal inconsistencies right now, and I guess the state courts and eventually the federal courts will need to sort out these issues.

Mr.Baggins, my question remains. Why does the STATE have to issue licenses and have a formal ceremony, regardless of who conducts it, for a marriage to be validly formed?

Historically, that STATE was not invovled in legalizing marriages. Here is a link to the practice of the Romans.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr.../aa110700a.htm

Note, that everything was privately conducted. The state was not involved. The families of the bride and groom were. People could get married simply by living together for one year.