Gay Marriage

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Political correctness began the moment we no longer let alpha males mate with all the females, chase away their competition and destroy the young that they didn't sire.

Males have enjoyed living this "politically correct" way for so long that they take it for granted. What you deem political correctness I see as intelligence and civility. I don't think you'd enjoy returning to the old ways of determining social rank. I fear it would be bad for your health.

You have a prejudice against alpha males so prefer selective morality rather than hold equality as an ideal. This explains why you can never understand the purpose of marriage being respected as the union between a man and woman. You don't respect the "ideal."

First of all, equality is an essential ideal to maintain a free society but it can never be an ideal of secularism that functions through selective power and force. True equality that is not subjectively defined and maintained by a dictator requires the collective religious appreciation that we need help from above. Simone Weil describes it as well as possible:

"The combination of these two facts – the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it – constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality. Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect. This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings." Simone Weil

“Draft for A Statement of Human Obligations” SIMONE WEIL, AN ANTHOLOGY ed. Sian Miles

A living religious society respects its connection to the greater good through its rituals. One such ritual is marriage. Marriage represents the union of the yin and yang or the male and female principles that creates that forms an objective union capable of receiving from above. This understanding is something essential for opposing the normal secular influences of power and force creating their norms.

This marriage has the additional purpose through healthy non negative sex furthered through spiritual understanding of our relationship to the higher, of bringing a healthy essence into the society called a baby.

The ideal of a marriage then honors the qualitative yin/yang union essential to maintain a free society through its influence.

Naturally this ideal especially in modern times is rarely actualized but still the ideal is a healthy societal influence that reminds us that there is a higher reality greater than our own that can help us to become ourselves which is the goal of all the ancient traditions initiating with a conscious source.

A homosexual union is either yin or yang so cannot produce what the yin/yang relation ideally can produce which is essential for a free society to further its connection with the above.

This doesn't make a gay union "bad." All it means is that marriage itself is a yin/yang union that sustains a free society. It allows us to remain capable of actualizing even in part what Simone says is the only possible motive for equality.

You want to attack alpha males and I want to further our potential for equality and freedom within which respect for the religious qualitative yin/yang relationship is essential.

Unfortunately with all this political correctness, there are fewer and fewer of this quality of marriage to our collective detriment.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by bob x

Yes, I know they believe God created THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. But, they need to have their own special word for THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION: use the word "wedding", use the word "matrimony", but don't interfere with the word which the law uses, for THE LEGAL INSTITUTION. The churches keep insisting that the law has to be the one to change its word, but that means over a thousand legislative amendments, which is a big waste of time and money. It wouldn't cost the churches anything to start saying "God created matrimony between man and woman..." meaning the exact same thing they meant the day before.

Whats wrong with CIVIL UNION?

[Faithfulservant]

They already stole the rainbow... why do they have to have the word marriage also?

[citizenzen]

Did Christians steal the cross?

I really wanted to use one for my company logo.

But didn't want to be mistakenly associated with, you know... that group.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Jamarz

In a true Democracy, the rights of the minority must be protected and that is why we have the courts to protect all of us from the tyranny of the majority.

In a true democracy (also known as mobacracy) the minority will get voted out everytime. Hence the reason the US is a constitutional republic and I have no idea why we try to promote democracy which has never worked.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Equality under the law is now an outdated archaic concept. To infer that equality under the law has anything to do with modern American society is just being naive. It no longer exists.

I don't think it is outdated or archaic but agree it is non existant..I sat thru the pledge of allegiance from 1972 thru and including our graduation ceremony in 75 for this very reason.

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

The problem with this is that the churches believe that God created marriage between man and woman... .so they wont "get out of it" no matter how many homosexual couples wish it were so. You can go back to Genesis which is a lot further back then the Unites States govt. The churches believe that we are to uphold the laws of the land as long as they do not supercede Gods law.

as far as the civil union.. Im all for it.. Give them all the rights afforded a married couple.

I don't know whether marriage is the best word for the translation or union...but I do know that neither words were written in Hebrew, Greek or Latin....so it was centuries before someone took on the marriage word...

That and there are churches all over the world willing to perform same sex marriage ceremonies even if the gov't doesn't recognize it....

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Whats wrong with CIVIL UNION?

Nothing, if that was the term the law used. But it isn't, and it would be expensive and time-consuming to change the legal word. If the religious people don't want to use the same word that the law does, it is easier for THEM to change their wordings.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Jamarz

I totally disagree with you. This whole issue is a remnant of state-run churches.

You are thoroughly mistaken. States recognized marriages for thousands of years before any such things as a "church" existed.

Originally Posted by Jamarz

The government has only one concern: contractual obligations. What rights do we grant you and what responsibilities will you accept in exchange? And that is called a civil union.

No, that is not called "civil union"; it is called MARRIAGE. My parents have been married for decades, and have nothing to do with any church. Stop pretending you're the only people in the world.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by bob x

You are thoroughly mistaken. States recognized marriages for thousands of years before any such things as a "church" existed.

No, that is not called "civil union"; it is called MARRIAGE. My parents have been married for decades, and have nothing to do with any church. Stop pretending you're the only people in the world.

I'm sure there are those who will object to gutting the meaning out of the word:

There is this element of the definition:
7.a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.

...the etymology of the word also reflects the blending of different elements:
1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.

To marry means the blending of different (i.e., not the same) elements. It might pose a problem.

[Dream]

I'm not familiar with the bills and statutes that have been proposed for either gay marriage or civil unions, however...

For the USA at this time it seems surreal to expect nationwide legal recognition of same sex 'marriage'. Maybe it could happen in the future, depending on many things; but the civil unions really sound more likely to pass. I do not understand why instituting civil unions is seen as only a partial measure. Perhaps gay marriage is just a talking point about religious acceptance, otherwise why is the word marriage an issue? Do not civil unions carry the same legal force as marriage? In other words, how would enacting civil marriages not bridge the gap?

[bob x]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

To marry means the blending of different (i.e., not the same) elements. It might pose a problem.

When ketchup bottles are "married", it is not required that they be different brands of ketchup, only that there are two of them. It is of course required that you have two different people, before you can have a "marriage", but that is the only sense of "different" involved in the meaning of the word.

Originally Posted by Dream

For the USA at this time it seems surreal to expect nationwide legal recognition of same sex 'marriage'.

If a court rules that marriage must be available to all, on equal terms, then it will be.

Originally Posted by Dream

I do not understand why instituting civil unions is seen as only a partial measure.

Because it's not the same.

Originally Posted by Dream

Perhaps gay marriage is just a talking point about religious acceptance

Not at all. I don't give a damn what your church thinks. Marriage is about legal rights, period.

Originally Posted by Dream

Do not civil unions carry the same legal force as marriage?

"Civil unions" don't exist at all as a legal institution, except where recently created; nowhere has this newly-minted institution carried the same rights as marriage, and in terms of transferability, it simply can't (a couple entering into a "civil union" in Vermont loses 100% of the legal rights if they move to Michigan).

Originally Posted by Dream

In other words, how would enacting civil marriages not bridge the gap?

Civil marriages don't have to be "enacted"; they already exist, and have existed for longer than this "Christianity" upstart.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by bob x

When ketchup bottles are "married", it is not required that they be different brands of ketchup, only that there are two of them. It is of course required that you have two different people, before you can have a "marriage", but that is the only sense of "different" involved in the meaning of the word.

Exactly. It would contradict my desire to leave donkeys out of the equation.

In fact, it would seem to require them!

[Janz]

Originally Posted by wil

In a true democracy (also known as mobacracy) the minority will get voted out everytime. Hence the reason the US is a constitutional republic and I have no idea why we try to promote democracy which has never worked.

Picky picky picky, I am sorry that after 8 years of listening to Bush and his neocon cronies speak about bringing democracy to the middle east, I think we are all confused.
Yes, the US is a true CR where the rights of the minority must be protected and that is why we have the courts to protect all of us from the tyranny of the majority.

As John M. Scheb wrote in his book: An Introduction to the American Legal System

"the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

As Louis Armstrong says:

You say "potato," I say "patattah"
You say "tomato", I say "creole tomata
So, I say "ursta" you say "oyster"
I'm not gonna stop eatin' urstas just cause you say oyster,
Oh, let's call the whole thing off.

J/K

[citizenzen]

I'll bet Jamrz was always the smartest kid in the classroom.

Nail on the head.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Did Christians steal the cross?

I really wanted to use one for my company logo.

But didn't want to be mistakenly associated with, you know... that group.

Exactly my point! If they feel so persecuted by the church why would they use a symbol that was created as a symbolic covenant between man and God that God would not destroy the world with water ever again... ??

Ironically one of the evil deeds man was destroyed because of was sexual immorality. So is it a slap in the face of God..?? like haha you SAID you wouldnt destroy the world with water so we can la la and frolick and flaunt our sin in your face and you wont flood us again? ... I dont know but a lot of people in the church see it that way.

Just another point of view, folks.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Exactly my point! If they feel so persecuted by the church why would they use a symbol that was created as a symbolic covenant between man and God that God would not destroy the world with water ever again... ??

So your saying that before Christianity there was no such thing as marriage?

What exactly existed those thousands of years prior?