Same sex marriage

[RandBlade]

Sorry if there's a thread with this I've missed it. The UK governments about to "launch a consultation" on legalising Same Sex Marriage (we already have Civil Partnerships). I have little doubt what the consultationship will say: legalise it.

The Church (which was OK with Civil Partnerships here) has come out against Same Sex Marriage. Stuff them as far as I'm concerned - however I do think the Church should have a right not to conduct religious marriages for same sex couples if they don't want to. I think civil partnerships are good as a stepping stone to real marriage, but marriages should be allowed to be called marriage not another name.

I'm an atheist and do not care what religion has to say on the matter. When I get married next year we're having a civil ceremony for our wedding as neither of us are religious. We will not play any religious music, have any religious readings or background or anything else - and it will be a wedding, and we will be married. I do not see why gay couples can not have the same civil rights as I do, even if the church denies them religious ones.

I love this quote from a gay rights charity here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17162442

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay, lesbian and bisexual charity Stonewall, said: "Our strong advice to anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is not to get married to someone of the same sex."

[Nessus]

Finland is in a similar situation, we have MPs collecting support for changing legislation. And naturally the church and the Christian Democrats are opposed.

The church is in a bit of a bind though, since we're an increasingly secular society and I know many atheists who still belong to the church "just 'cos, and what if I want a church wedding?" type stuff. If these people get pissed off enough, they will leave the church in protest, meaning lost revenue for the church and an increasingly radical church as only the worst holy-rollers will stick around. At that point it is entirely possible some people would start making noise about completely de-coupling the church from the national government, as removed as they already are. This, although an unlikely scenario, should scare the church leadership as it'd effectively mean the destruction of the church as it now exists.

[Ominous Gamer]

Why do you type Church like that Rand? With the capital C? I have no problem with allowing churches to deny performing a ceremony, its so incredibly easy to become an ordained minister. Hell, even the janitor at work is one. Churches already deny performing for all kinds of reasons, the one that is conducting my ceremony turns away anyone who isn't associated with the church. But you type Church as if there is only 1 source of religion?

[Nessus]

Ingurland, just as Finland, has one large church with some ties to the state. In our case, we also have some catholics, jews, and crazy evangelicals, but they're all minorities.

[Wraith]

Why do you type Church like that Rand? With the capital C? I have no problem with allowing churches to deny performing a ceremony, its so incredibly easy to become an ordained minister. Hell, even the janitor at work is one. Churches already deny performing for all kinds of reasons, the one that is conducting my ceremony turns away anyone who isn't associated with the church. But you type Church as if there is only 1 source of religion?

Because that's enough for us to know he's talking about the Church of England without having to type out its full name.

[CitizenCain]

Silly homos (and atheists) who want a part of a colossal failure of a religious institution... I find you guys very confusing. Hard to wrap my mind around why anyone, save those who believe their deity decrees it, would actually want a marriage. <shrug

[RandBlade]

Why do you type Church like that Rand? With the capital C? I have no problem with allowing churches to deny performing a ceremony, its so incredibly easy to become an ordained minister. Hell, even the janitor at work is one. Churches already deny performing for all kinds of reasons, the one that is conducting my ceremony turns away anyone who isn't associated with the church. But you type Church as if there is only 1 source of religion?

I write it with a capital C as I'm referring to a name, a proper noun has a capital letter. As others guessed I am referring to the CoE, the established church here.

While you guys have a formal separation of church and state (if not a practical one), we have a formal link between church and state, but not such a practical one. Anglican Bishops even have the right to sit in - and can vote in - the House of Lords (our version of the Senate).

[Lewkowski]

Its like people think that being able to legally call it "marriage" will somehow make it more socially acceptable. I'm not going to refer to two men as being married regardless of how they want to interpret their relationship. Just like I wouldn't refer to you being married if the state says its OK to marry goats. Feel free to call it what you want but it won't change anyone's opinion.

People will have their opinions on what constitutes marriage. Government should get out of the entire process all together. There should be no costs or benefits to being married. Taxation, inheritance, pension or otherwise. These types of concepts made sense when social values had men as the primary bread winner but that's not the case today. Joint filing for taxes is silly. Why should anyone gain an advantage for entering into a partnership over the single folks? Why should single folks get benefits/penalties for being single?

Now in UK I understand you have some weird hybrid of church and state and that too should be done away with.

[GGT]

Its like people think that being able to legally call it "marriage" will somehow make it more socially acceptable. I'm not going to refer to two men as being married regardless of how they want to interpret their relationship. Just like I wouldn't refer to you being married if the state says its OK to marry goats. Feel free to call it what you want but it won't change anyone's opinion.

It's already more socially acceptable, just as homosexuality, and then being openly gay became acceptable. Where have you been the last couple of decades? Younger generations don't have the old, rigid and exclusionary views of their grandparents. They have friends/teachers/neighbors -- maybe parents -- who are gay, and know it's not an "illness" or something to be "fixed".

Equating gays marrying to goats marrying is no better than Santorum's man-on-dog comparison: demeaning, derogatory, and de-humanizing.

People will have their opinions on what constitutes marriage. Government should get out of the entire process all together. There should be no costs or benefits to being married. Taxation, inheritance, pension or otherwise. These types of concepts made sense when social values had men as the primary bread winner but that's not the case today. Joint filing for taxes is silly. Why should anyone gain an advantage for entering into a partnership over the single folks? Why should single folks get benefits/penalties for being single?

Now in UK I understand you have some weird hybrid of church and state and that too should be done away with.

Government got involved when practically everyone was married, and the 'social value' of marriage was recognized in contract and property laws. You do know that still exists today, right? Especially when children are involved, and military spouses. It's not a matter of losing a primary bread winner (although the economic advantages are real) but equal legal status for couples as their most important family member. Not their parent or sibling or 'domestic partner'...but their spouse.

Important non-governmental agencies give legal priority status to spouses, like hospitals looking for next-of-kin for life and death decisions. Same sex spouses should have legal marriage parity. Imagine the Terry Schiavo case, but this time the parents are fighting her wife, and the marriage isn't legally recognized in the state.

I'd agree that married couples shouldn't have tax deductions just for being married. But it'd also be stupid to have a stay-home parent/retired/non-working spouse file as an individual, without claiming joint family or household income. All that just means our tax code is fubar and needs reforming, not that same sex marriage shouldn't be considered a secular civil right.

Religious groups can marry, or deny to marry, whomever they want, based on their doctrine. But those couples still have to apply/file in a courthouse for a marriage license, and have it recorded, to be recognized as legally married. Would you get rid of that, too?

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm not going to refer to two men as being married regardless of how they want to interpret their relationship. Just like I wouldn't refer to you being married if the state says its OK to marry goats. Feel free to call it what you want but it won't change anyone's opinion.

How often do you refer to black people who happen to suffer through dealing with you as slaves?

Why should single folks get penalties for being single?

Totally agree, now lets see insurance drop that from their calculations.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Its like people think that being able to legally call it "marriage" will somehow make it more socially acceptable

You do not understand human psychology, nor can you reason out remotely while it will help a great deal.

To briefly explain, when we are calling two things the same thing, they are more apt to be viewed same. Perhaps not this generation but next generation when they talk about different kinds of marriages and they'll list interacial, heterosexual, and homosexual all on the same line. Define the interactiont the interaction the same, we give it the same name. This already says a statement that in this society they're equal. This will help encourage children to see them as equal when society formally recognizes it as such.

It's like a snowball effect. Since more people beleive they are the same now, it encourages other to beleive they are the same, more media outlits will be talking about same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage as the same thing. It reinforces the a mindset.

It'll basically be counter-indoctrination to the current indoctrination that exists saying it's wrong.

Feel free to call it what you want but it won't change anyone's opinion.

You do not see how society evolves at all. You are right to say there will always be lewks in the world.

[RandBlade]

Its like people think that being able to legally call it "marriage" will somehow make it more socially acceptable. I'm not going to refer to two men as being married regardless of how they want to interpret their relationship. Just like I wouldn't refer to you being married if the state says its OK to marry goats. Feel free to call it what you want but it won't change anyone's opinion.

People will have their opinions on what constitutes marriage. Government should get out of the entire process all together. There should be no costs or benefits to being married. Taxation, inheritance, pension or otherwise. These types of concepts made sense when social values had men as the primary bread winner but that's not the case today. Joint filing for taxes is silly. Why should anyone gain an advantage for entering into a partnership over the single folks? Why should single folks get benefits/penalties for being single?

The law should not be determined to change people's opinions though - or even necessarily to reflect them either. What you refer to as goats, years ago inter-racial was just as (if not more) repugnant. Doesn't make it illegal today.

Society is already changing its opinion. On this side of the pond it is the law struggling to keep up not the other way around.

Now in UK I understand you have some weird hybrid of church and state and that too should be done away with.

Totally agreed.

I do find it ironic though in that we are officially an Anglican (Christian) state, but religion doesn't enter our politics. You are officially a secular state, yet religion does enter yours.

[Lewkowski]

Totally agree, now lets see insurance drop that from their calculations.

Why should government mandate how insurance runs their business? If government is powerful enough to decide how a company should set their rates its also powerful to decide who can get married.

The only solution is to minimize government's involvement.

[Lewkowski]

The law should not be determined to change people's opinions though - or even necessarily to reflect them either. What you refer to as goats, years ago inter-racial was just as (if not more) repugnant. Doesn't make it illegal today.

Society is already changing its opinion. On this side of the pond it is the law struggling to keep up not the other way around.
Totally agreed.

I do find it ironic though in that we are officially an Anglican (Christian) state, but religion doesn't enter our politics. You are officially a secular state, yet religion does enter yours.

So a 100 years from now society changes and bestiality becomes more acceptable will they be talking about how backward we are now?

You have said this will have no practical change since you guys already have civil unions. So what is this other than a way to change the opinion of the public?

[Lewkowski]

It's already more socially acceptable, just as homosexuality, and then being openly gay became acceptable. Where have you been the last couple of decades? Younger generations don't have the old, rigid and exclusionary views of their grandparents. They have friends/teachers/neighbors -- maybe parents -- who are gay, and know it's not an "illness" or something to be "fixed".

Equating gays marrying to goats marrying is no better than Santorum's man-on-dog comparison: demeaning, derogatory, and de-humanizing.



Government got involved when practically everyone was married, and the 'social value' of marriage was recognized in contract and property laws. You do know that still exists today, right? Especially when children are involved, and military spouses. It's not a matter of losing a primary bread winner (although the economic advantages are real) but equal legal status for couples as their most important family member. Not their parent or sibling or 'domestic partner'...but their spouse.

Important non-governmental agencies give legal priority status to spouses, like hospitals looking for next-of-kin for life and death decisions. Same sex spouses should have legal marriage parity. Imagine the Terry Schiavo case, but this time the parents are fighting her wife, and the marriage isn't legally recognized in the state.

I'd agree that married couples shouldn't have tax deductions just for being married. But it'd also be stupid to have a stay-home parent/retired/non-working spouse file as an individual, without claiming joint family or household income. All that just means our tax code is fubar and needs reforming, not that same sex marriage shouldn't be considered a secular civil right.

Religious groups can marry, or deny to marry, whomever they want, based on their doctrine. But those couples still have to apply/file in a courthouse for a marriage license, and have it recorded, to be recognized as legally married. Would you get rid of that, too?

Why should non-governmental agencies give legal priority to spouses? Why not just have people state who they want to handle their crap if they become incapacitated or die?

And absolutely I would get rid of court houses doing marriage licenses. It shouldn't be a government concern how people live their life! Protect people from external and internal threats. Have a legal system for contract disputes. Beyond that, stop telling people how to live and ALL of this meaningless debate about what is or isn't marriage goes away.

[Ominous Gamer]

Why should government mandate how insurance runs their business? If government is powerful enough to decide how a company should set their rates its also powerful to decide who can get married.
The only solution is to minimize government's involvement.

First you stated that a married status shouldn't carry any extra weight with it, then you defended an industry that uses such a status to screw over a minority.

I can't tell if thats kneejerk astroturfing, or your attempt to show that minimal government involvement is far from the only solution.

[Lewkowski]

First you stated that a married status shouldn't carry any extra weight with it, then you defended an industry that uses such a status to screw over a minority.

I can't tell if thats kneejerk astroturfing, or your attempt to show that minimal government involvement is far from the only solution.

*THE GOVERNMENT* shouldn't weigh things like marriage as a pro or a con. If you want to, feel free. Your someone with individual liberty and freedom. If you want to create a couples only book club, more power to you. However if the government provides an couples only tax benefit that's a problem. Do you see the difference?

[Ominous Gamer]

sure, you dislike the government from getting in the way of someone/group/industry of taking advantage of a weaker victim.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I believe in rights, and individual freedoms, but the government does need to weigh everything.

[Hazir]

So a 100 years from now society changes and bestiality becomes more acceptable will they be talking about how backward we are now?

You have said this will have no practical change since you guys already have civil unions. So what is this other than a way to change the opinion of the public?

Typical religious ass talk. Could you please explain to me why you lot are incapable of shutting up about sex?

[Hazir]

*THE GOVERNMENT* shouldn't weigh things like marriage as a pro or a con. If you want to, feel free. Your someone with individual liberty and freedom. If you want to create a couples only book club, more power to you. However if the government provides an couples only tax benefit that's a problem. Do you see the difference?

Boohoo, just because religious nuts like you think they've got a monopoly on the word 'marriage' government all of a sudden should get out of family law How stupid you think people really are?

The problem that needs to be fixed in anglo-saxon countries is that you can legally get married in a church at all.

[Lewkowski]

Typical religious ass talk. Could you please explain to me why you lot are incapable of shutting up about sex?

Could you please explain why you need the government to weigh in on everything?

[Lewkowski]

sure, you dislike the government from getting in the way of someone/group/industry of taking advantage of a weaker victim.

And I suppose government has never taken advantage of people?

In addition using actuarial data is not "taking advantage" of someone regardless of how you spin it.

[Ominous Gamer]

In addition using actuarial data is not "taking advantage" of someone regardless of how you spin it.

The whole point of insurance, and its data collecting, is to take the highest possible advantage of the payee without pricing itself out of market. The house always wins. Everyone that bucks the trend in a positive manner, which would statically be half, gets it doubly so.

[Loki]

And the point of buying insurance is to minimize risk, which means the buyer wins half the time (using your own logic; the actual math is more complicated).

[Lewkowski]

The whole point of insurance, and its data collecting, is to take the highest possible advantage of the payee without pricing itself out of market. The house always wins. Everyone that bucks the trend in a positive manner, which would statically be half, gets it doubly so.

Fun times when many insurance companies pay more out in claims and costs then they get in premiums.

[Lebanese Dragon]

That said insurance will always have it's place in society, it is a wise choice at time. Just because someone else profits on average doesn't mean you lose.

It's very obvious that heterosexual couples and same-sex couples should be labeled the same, and have all the same rights. Whether that's immoral is a diferent question than whether society ought allow it. The two don't always coincide.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Could you please explain why you need the government to weigh in on everything?

it's up to you to explain why religion should run a clearly secular concept such as marriage. Marriage is a matter of economics. Always has been, always will be.

and could you refrain from comparing homosexuality to bestiality? It makes you look dumber than saudi religious leaders, assuming such a thing is possible. If not, it makes you look just as dumb as them.

[LittleFuzzy]

it's up to you to explain why religion should run a clearly secular concept such as marriage. Marriage is a matter of economics. Always has been, always will be.

Nonsense. I don't deny that it has economic consequences but the tying of two *or more* people together has always been a matter of social control over an evolutionary psych behavioral pattern, one we see expressed in myriad formats throughout the animal kingdom.

[Hazir]

Nonsense. I don't deny that it has economic consequences but the tying of two *or more* people together has always been a matter of social control over an evolutionary psych behavioral pattern, one we see expressed in myriad formats throughout the animal kingdom.

And this is relevant how ?