Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 If states/governments ought to have no say in marital matters of what religious bodies do, does that mean that a Muslim man in the United States can have four wives? I mean, come on - it's their belief system. <_< Religious bodies have to operate within boundaries set by the state, via civil code or other (don't know what "other" would be). That is why you have one religious body pressuring governments to take a stance on their side to get the other religious body to "behave"... That is why the norms the state puts out have to be all-encompassing - so they can answer to secular gays' needs if they're not going to be married at a church that blesses gay marriages, for instance. Which makes me wonder - what happens if a Saudi with four wives comes to the U.S. (nothing authorities can do about it) and gains citizenship after several years, in addition to his own Saudi citizenship? What status do the four wives have and are they all granted citizenship and all that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 By recognized, I mean those so-called "churches" that are in tents and get people married without looking at their current marital status and other things and hand them out a marriage certificate that is not valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 does that mean that a Muslim man in the United States can have four wives? if there were complete separation between government and religion, yes, that should be the case. But that's not the case because of the fact that religion has a huge role in politics as it stands right now. And that is exactly what we're trying to fight - politics is politics, religion is religion. They can keep off their religious "laws" off my body and out of my life. Reminding you of the pressures the Catholic church put on Catholic politicians w.r.t same-sex marriage and other such issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 So you are saying that civil code is limited by Judeo-Christian laws. If there were complete separation of church and state, then would one have to be a Muslim to have four spouses (not wives)? Five? Do you still care about the methods through which this would be conducted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 (edited) No one needs to be anything in order to do whatever they want, as long as there are religious figures within institutions who are supportive of what they want to do. but banning something even though there are people who support it and conduct those marriages is just wrong. Note on last sentence: (as long as the acts are consented to by all parties involved) Edited December 11, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 There we go with the religion again, while you are saying nobody has to be anything to do what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 (edited) Stormy jan, I am not saying that ppl should ignore religion and do whatever the hell they want under its umbrella. i am talking about what people should have the right to do, because it's not right to have something banned because only a minority approves of it. had we believed in such a system, blacks and women would've never had their freedom and rights.. "If there were fixed principles and laws nations would not change them as easily as we change our shirts" - Balzac (Old Goriot) Bottom line is: yesterday's morality cannot be the justification for today's morality that refuses giving rights to certain groups that were suppressed... Edited December 11, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Dear Davo Perhaps it is fortunate that you are born heterosexual but suppose you were not. Would you not feel offended if some straight religious person told you that your relationship to significant other is superficial and handicapped but my question to you is -how would you know it is anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 In the other hand I would say that the Armenian society (I mean in Armenia) by being less tolerant to subjects as homosexuality and sexual abuse of children, kanibalizm and so on seems to work. Because as far as I know this kind of problems (almost) don`t exist in Armenia. Hm - just like in Nazi Germany eh? Unfourtunatly - for you - out of sight (by necessity) does not mean that it ain't happening. And history and a look at allsocieties shows us that a certain percentage of folks are going to be gay (or some such). This is just fact. And in fact gays have made great contributions to the culture and advancement of our world - we have had many very creative and industrious gays at various times and places in our world - and perhaps you shouldbe thankful for that. But the bottom line is - why should you care. Its not you - do your own thing your way - and be thankful that no one is telling you how to live your life. Let others do the same. It is a non-issue IMO. Just because someone may or may not want to play around with someone of their own sex, or perhaps not at all, or whatever - it is not what should be considered what a person IS. A person is a person - all of the other stuff is their own business - and is inconsequential. I mean really - is every - or even most situations that you are in on a daily basis concenring sex? I thought not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheekY Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 If a man has contact with an other man he should be killed by stones. (according the bible) i thought Jesus said not to judge and punish anyone for God will do it himself... Because as far as I know this kind of problems (almost) don`t exist in Armenia. yeah right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Davo - No one is perfect. And yes if someone contributes the rest should be greateful regardless. I'm greatful for prostitutes as I think they serve a good purpose - (though am agianst under aged and abused etc) - though I've never ad need of one myself. And see you aree making a judgement call - that categorically being gay is a bad thing. I don't see it. What is your real proof. How is being gay harmful? How does it hurt anyone? (and I'm not talking deviants or predators etc - as these exist in all gender types or what have you...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 SS Marriages. I think that people who have this feelings should not get married. I think that no one should be named DAVO. I really dislike that name - in fact it repulses me. Kill them all! etc (do you see my point here? What business is it of mine what your name is...or what you eat for breakfast, who your friends are, if you like to drink or not, if you masurbate alone or with friends...again - what business is it of mine?) Marriage, in my ppint of view is a start of a family and beacause of the fact that this people can not create a family they should just forget about marriage. Again see above. Many peple are married that do not have children. They are married because they love each other - and do have a family - in themselves. Gays are no different. And there is always adoption. I have had several friends that have been unable to have children - some have adopted and have wonderful families/children etc...but are you saying that those who chose not to adopt should be divorced? etc the difference is the sexual act right? I don't know - you tell me...seems like much is pretty much the same I imagine..or at least ballpark? I don't know - are gays fdoing something that is (directly) threatening you? I don't understand..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 God created ADAM and EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE! And please don`t lett this people adopt children, I think it would be pretty unnatural to be raises by to fathers. Well yes...regarding Adam & Steve.. http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/genesis/genesis.htm also of interest - http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/relations...lationships.htm And regarding your second point - just what is natural? Do you eat prcessed foods? Refined suger? Do you eat oatmeal with ketchup? (don't laugh - a French friend of mine does...and I'd say its not nbatural - not in the least...but is it wrong? i mean should it be against the law?) http://www.gayparentmag.com/ http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheekY Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 davo let it go who cares! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 There we go with the proselytizing again. If I mentioned religion, it was to put things in perspective, not to invite a Crusade! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Because as far as I know this kind of problems (almost) don`t exist in Armenia. gayarmenia.com tells me otherwise.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 I think it`s like a magnese, the two poles atract each other oh, and here i was thinking that birds of a feather flock together... If a man has contact with an other man he should be killed by stones. (according the bible) which verse is that? and can you prove that the bible is more than just a human creation? i'm sorry, but i don't blindly follow something just because "OUR church says so." Marriage, in my ppint of view is a start of a family and beacause of the fact that this people can not create a family they should just forget about marriage. so heterosexuals who are infertile should not get married? or wait, is there some double standard on that one? besides, who said gay people can't have kids? science is advancing... and to say that gay people should not get married just cos they can't have babies is like saying that people who have cancer should not have normal lives and go to work or have social relations or even get married or try to get healthy or whatever.. God created ADAM and EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE! ooops, there we go.. the standard argument haha... please.. if you can prove that there indeed WAS an Adam and Eve, i will get married to a woman lol.... tell ya what, why don't you start a chapter of the Schutzstaffel in your area against gays, cos apparently they've hurt you so much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Dan, I am all for civil union, but I fail to see what marriage will bring more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Domino, marriage is a right for ALL, whether gay or straight. everyone should have a right to get married -- the issue is whether or not there are any churches who are willing to bless gay marriage (and there are a lot of churches that do).. so if the church disapproves of the marriage between a certain man and a woman, it has the right to deny the couple the right for marriage? i don't get it...... and what about interracial marriage? i mean, i'm all for civil unions between 2 people (man and woman!) of different races, but i fail to see what marriage will bring more? what does marriage bring to straight couples anyway, and why do straight couples get married? is there some kinda benefit to it? what about atheists who get married? eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Domino, marriage is a right for ALL, whether gay or straight. everyone should have a right to get married -- the issue is whether or not there are any churches who are willing to bless gay marriage (and there are a lot of churches that do).. so if the church disapproves of the marriage between a certain man and a woman, it has the right to deny the couple the right for marriage? i don't get it...... and what about interracial marriage? i mean, i'm all for civil unions between 2 people (man and woman!) of different races, but i fail to see what marriage will bring more? what does marriage bring to straight couples anyway, and why do straight couples get married? is there some kinda benefit to it? what about atheists who get married? eh? Dan, you don't get it. Civil Union will give gays the same rights as marriage can. My question is what will marriage bring more? Marriage is an institution that is not working very well these days, and gays jump on it like if it will bring them something new. I see that as naming the same car with two different names, they are identical, if you tell me you can have this and not the other, I won't mind at all, I'll take it. What are you expecting with marriage? Please don't start with the argument that everyone should have the right to get married, because it is not a valid argument. What I ask you, is what more marriage will bring compared to civil union? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 I think gay marriage is desired for equal social status with straight marriages and financial benefits (such as using insurance by the spouse, inheritance issues, etc), don't know which one is perceived more important for gay people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 I think gay marriage is desired for equal social status with straight marriages and financial benefits (such as using insurance by the spouse, inheritance issues, etc), don't know which one is perceived more important for gay people. All those advantages, Civil union provide them as well Sasun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 All those advantages, Civil union provide them as well Sasun. Really? Hmm... I didn't know. In that case marriage is just an unncecessary institution. But are you sure it gives exactly the same rights? Why then some people avoid marriage and prefer civil union, and some do the opposite? I think there are some differences in the US (at least) depending on the state. On the social status case, I still think that "I am married" sounds different from "I am in a civil union" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Really? Hmm... I didn't know. In that case marriage is just an unncecessary institution. But are you sure it gives exactly the same rights? Why then some people avoid marriage and prefer civil union, and some do the opposite? I think there are some differences in the US (at least) depending on the state. On the social status case, I still think that "I am married" sounds different from "I am in a civil union" A gay couple won't need more than a civil union, all the other pluses of the marriage is about kids, which is a non-issue here on this cases unless a gay couple decide adoption, but in this cases they have to fill legal papers... so we end up with no much more with a married couple having kids. The rest of it is just religious and cultural. You can not force a church to marry people they do not want. If a church decide to marry a gay couple and signe all the stuff on front of law you can always have the civil union plus the church benediction. I don't see why the marriage concept should be all changed and all this problem created for something that won't change anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 A gay couple won't need more than a civil union and why would a straight couple need it then? it's simply a matter of equality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.