Gay marriage

[Whateverist]

That's ridiculous. That's like saying atheists or Muslims or women should form their own sect of Christianity in order to raise a child. You must see how silly that is.

I am still on thread topic not adoption.......... I am not saying marriage is a grounds for being allowed to adopt.

What I am saying is;

Homosexual Christians say God allows gay marriage, the ones against say he doesn't. Different interpretations, the basis for a branch off Christian group. I don't see why that would be offensive to anyone, seems logical if anything.

I am confused why someone who brands himself an anti-theist recommends labeling oneself as some kind of Christian - for whatever purpose. Also, if you see that pair bonding precedes religion evolutionarily, why do you speak of marriage as being an artifact of religion? What counts is the legal recognition of rights and benefits, and that is something the state decides through its legislative and judicial function. Whether or not someone wants to have a wedding ceremony performed at any particular church is a completely separate matter. I surely would not want such a thing performed by a group hostile to what I am.

[KichigaiNeko]

Thank you whateverist. For putting into words my first thoughts.

I maintain that the "Gay Marriage" issue is one of legislation in recognising many years of "co habitation" just as legally binding in a court of secular law no matter what the gender / sex of the couple involved.

---

Why should these people NOT have a ceremony just as full of romance and frippery as any other person on the planet?

[JohnCrichton72]

I am still on thread topic not adoption.......... I am not saying marriage is a grounds for being allowed to adopt.

What I am saying is;

Homosexual Christians say God allows gay marriage, the ones against say he doesn't. Different interpretations, the basis for a branch off Christian group. I don't see why that would be offensive to anyone, seems logical if anything.

I am confused why someone who brands himself an anti-theist recommends labeling oneself as some kind of Christian - for whatever purpose. Also, if you see that pair bonding precedes religion evolutionarily, why do you speak of marriage as being an artifact of religion? What counts is the legal recognition of rights and benefits, and that is something the state decides through its legislative and judicial function. Whether or not someone wants to have a wedding ceremony performed at any particular church is a completely separate matter. I surely would not want such a thing performed by a group hostile to what I am.

Whom did I recommend label themselves as a Christian other than Christians.

I assumed marriage went beyond civil recognition of a union, that it was a religious interpretation that implemented rules that were exclusive and called it marriage.



Also I was under the impression there were already equal rights?

[KichigaiNeko]

Sorry to burst your bubble John Crichton.

"Marriage" has always been and will ever be a secular institution. It is all about who gets what and why. In religion or in law.

That's it. Religion of course would dearly love to acquire the wealth from it's adherents but it has no claim on the "institution of marriage" for all that it tries to influence law.

[Esquilax]

I assumed marriage went beyond civil recognition of a union, that it was a religious interpretation that implemented rules that were exclusive and called it marriage.

Even if this were true, what we'd be left with is the same problem we have with regards to religious monuments on government land or dime. What's the easier scenario: attempting to accommodate countless sometimes contradictory religious traditions of marriage in a legal sense, or not allowing any religious observances in that arena to be enshrined in law, instead allowing them to become private observances made by the individuals getting married?

Also I was under the impression there were already equal rights?

If you consider gay people getting a facsimile of the rights straights get freely, after spending hours of time and hundreds, if not thousands of dollars applying for those benefits as equal to just getting married, then I suppose so. I don't, and I know too much about history to see the concept of "separate yet equal," as anything but troublesome on its own.

[LastPoet]

You know, marriage was a mistake that I made, there are taxes & social help that I could get when I was unemployed if I was single. Also, me and my wife are thinking of getting a divorce before making our first child. Single moms have gvt help, married moms do not.

So yeah, homossexual people have the right to suffer just as hard as heterossexual people do

[Aractus]

So, Aractus, am I getting this right? You're saying "married" couples, as in couples that are recognized by the church as "married" (not united civilly) should get preferential treatment in adoption cases? And who is to decide which "married" couple that might be? What if someone wants her lesbian aunt to adopt her baby, but her parents want it?

Please cite your peer-reviewed psychological studies. I'm all ears.

Um, no. And no.

I said that the State prefers married couples, that's a fact (Aust. govt. that is). The State still grants adoptions to others, as I said though they prefer married couples.

This has nothing to do with private adoptions, this only has to do with State adoptions - children that are under the State's guardianship.

So as to your example, it's not a State issue, and it wouldn't be resolved by the government. It would be resolved by the courts, if it came to that, not the government.

[max-greece]

I am confused why someone who brands himself an anti-theist recommends labeling oneself as some kind of Christian - for whatever purpose. Also, if you see that pair bonding precedes religion evolutionarily, why do you speak of marriage as being an artifact of religion? What counts is the legal recognition of rights and benefits, and that is something the state decides through its legislative and judicial function. Whether or not someone wants to have a wedding ceremony performed at any particular church is a completely separate matter. I surely would not want such a thing performed by a group hostile to what I am.

Whom did I recommend label themselves as a Christian other than Christians.

I assumed marriage went beyond civil recognition of a union, that it was a religious interpretation that implemented rules that were exclusive and called it marriage.



Also I was under the impression there were already equal rights?

Why would you assume that? My wife and I got married in a Registry Office in London about 22 years ago. There was no religious aspect to the marriage whatsoever. We are legally married and recognized as such, as far as I know, everywhere.

[KichigaiNeko]

That is the point.

"Legally married" ..... "Civil union" just doesn't cut it. Unless of course you want to claim that ALL marriages are now called "Civil Unions" ...... sounds like some one has backed themselves into a corner. Legally.

[LastPoet]

You know, the greatest being on the Universe cares about what we do with our genitals

What a fucking joke.