By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - France legalizes gay marriage despite angry protests

 

Do you want gay marriage in your country?

Yes, It would just be fair 241 58.78%
 
No, get the gay out of my country 102 24.88%
 
meh, I don't really care 66 16.10%
 
Total:409
Zkuq said:
There needs to be to different "marriages": One (without the word 'marriage') for rights in front of law and no religious meaning, and one for religious meaning (with the word 'marriage') without any legal strings attached. Bam, we have a solution! If you're gay and it's really not a religious issue, this is the perfect solution. And if you happen to be religious and are against gay marriage, well, there's no gay marriage anymore and your marriage is purely religious! The perfect solution still!

The only case that I can quickly think of where anyone would have something against this is if they somehow consider gay people lesser individuals that should not have the same rights, in which case they should be ignored because there's absolutely NOTHING pointing to gay people being lesser people.

check encarta's new definition



 

Around the Network

Gay or straight, I can't understand why you would ever want to get married. The whole thing is really absurd in my opinion at least by its current legal definition. Maybe divorce laws are less harsh in France (doubt it) but I don't know. Marriage should be no different than joining a club, a local sports team, a fraternal organization ect. ect. You agree to join together for life or whatever, and you have your ceremony and then go on with your business without the lawyers involved.

The government should stay out of my love life ... and my life in general while we are at it.



fillet said:
Marriage is a Christian ceremony that the bible explicitly states is for two people of the opposite sex to participate in. The bible explicitly forbids homosexuality so therefore same sex marriage is ridiculous and wrong.

I have no problem with same sex relationships and a civil ceremony of course I have no problem against either. I also have no problem with people in same sex relationships participating in a civil ceremony benefiting from state benefits that people who are married enjoy.

People who don't believe in god also should not be allowed to get married, by adding that into law and creating a recognized civil partnership for those people that gives the same benefits as married people then everything is balanced out.

I challenge anyone to explain to me why this simple explanation is wrong, it is not prejudiced, it is simply against the teaching of said religion.


This applies to most countries.

Marriage is handled by the state. People of all religions and even people without religion can marry (according to you, people without religion can't marry, asi it's a "Christian ceremony").

As marriage is handled by the state, it's a state issue and even a right. The state shouldn't deny rights to anyone.

It is funny though, that people that use the same (very dumb) argument you used, would never deny an heterosexual atheist the right to marry.



fillet said:

Incorrect.

Marriage is an entirely religous affair. In the real world more often than not people getting married aren't religious or even believe in god. That is wrong and something that should be corrected at law level. For those people they should be allowed to have a civil ceremony or equivalent of marriage that gives all the same benefits and legal status minus the religous part.

It's blatently obvious that the problem lies with the state here and that both same sex couples - and the people protesting are in the right. It's simply the politicians in all countries don't have the balls to risk their re-election by making drastic changes to law that would prohibit people who admit to not believing in god from getting married and only allowing them civil partnerships - which would be identical to marriage in legal terms.

This may be an impossible and idealistic direction to take things but that's the way it is. There's nothing wrong with proposing a hypothetical solution, even if it will never happen. The whole reason that it is a problem is because no governement would be willing to make it happen.

There is no other just solution that will honour religion and treat same sex couples with fairness that they deserve.


I am a bit confused as to why one would desire to create class distinctions here?  What purpose does it serve to segregate people on basis of religion or anything else? 

"You're an 1, then your love is x, and you're a 2, so your love is y and of course being a 3 your love is z."

Why does it threaten what you have?  How would you even know looking at me and my fiancee what we believe and what our love is based on?  I think long ago we established that edicts of "separate, but equal" fail because that very separation breeds inequality.  



NintendoPie said:
BradleyJ said:
RCTjunkie said:

Just because someone doesn't approve of Gay Marriage doesn't mean that they want them out of the country or view them as evil demons/lesser persons.....

Sure it does.

No. It doesn't.

OT: Good for France. No matter how late they might be to this...

Yes. It does. Think it through.



Around the Network

'despite protests by a very vocal minority.' is what it should read.



BradleyJ said:

Yes. It does. Think it through.

I know what you're trying to imply. It's just not true. Just because some people think that Gay Marriage shouldn't be allowed doesn't mean that they think Gay people are lesser.



Torillian said:
Scoobes said:
fillet said:
Marriage is a Christian ceremony that the bible explicitly states is for two people of the opposite sex to participate in. The bible explicitly forbids homosexuality so therefore same sex marriage is ridiculous and wrong.

I have no problem with same sex relationships and a civil ceremony of course I have no problem against either. I also have no problem with people in same sex relationships participating in a civil ceremony benefiting from state benefits that people who are married enjoy.

People who don't believe in god also should not be allowed to get married, by adding that into law and creating a recognized civil partnership for those people that gives the same benefits as married people then everything is balanced out.

I challenge anyone to explain to me why this simple explanation is wrong, it is not prejudiced, it is simply against the teaching of said religion.

Well for starters it's not a Christian ceremony. You can have a Christian ceremony, but it was never solely a Christian affair. Marriage has been around longer than Christianity.


Yeah I don't really see how you could possibly make such a system work since there are so many kinds of religious ceremonies for marriage.  If people go have a Hindi wedding does this mean we wouldn't recognize them or do they just have to be having a religious marriage of some kind and believe in some god to be admitted?  And why then would you allow other religious marriages but not non-religious marriages?  Not to mention that I really don't ever want the government deciding or allowing something based on religious preferences, that's a whole other issue.  Religion really isn't a religious institution anymore, and I'm afraid that the religious are just going to have to get used to the idea.  We could have a religious wedding and a legal wedding as many already do, but there's no reason that the government should defer marriage to religions.  


Nothing wrong with that, but if things are to move forward and so nobody is offended a distinction should be made between religous marriages and straight up civil ones.

I'm not preaching some "this is wrong!!!" message. It's wrong from the Christian/Bible perspective and they will never be satisfied until the distinction is made.

It's a fact that many people see marriage as a religous event and god is mentioned in pretty much all marriages these days, even if the people getting married don't believe and marriages usually take place in a church in the UK and are conducted by a local vicar etc. Detach those things from it and you're left with a civil parternship and why should anyone who doesn't believe in god etc give a damn that the marriage takes place in a church? Has god mentioned? Is conducted by a vicard?

Surely most people wouldn't give a damn.

Can't have ya cake and eat it, and that's the reason that we have this problem with religious elements making a big fuss because people do want their cake and to eat it, it's just not compatible. Just like I kind take a dump in a female only toilet, "just because I feel like it". There's rules there for a reason and if gay marriages are going to be allowed then those marriages shouldn't be religous ones - by law, because they aren't part of the said religion.

I'm just talking about modernizing things so all get along really, I'm no faschist!



BradleyJ said:
NintendoPie said:
BradleyJ said:
RCTjunkie said:

Just because someone doesn't approve of Gay Marriage doesn't mean that they want them out of the country or view them as evil demons/lesser persons.....

Sure it does.

No. It doesn't.

OT: Good for France. No matter how late they might be to this...

Yes. It does. Think it through.


No it doesn't, you think it through! :p

There's different groups of people in the world, there's several factors at play here. Most people if you ask them honestly will say that same sex relationships are fine and same sex marriages definitely aren't fine, but civil partnerships are fine too. Who are we to judge what is fine for others some might say? Well, we aren't ok to do that, but these are groups where the values are at stake for each group.



http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-best-argument-i’ve-read-for-traditional-marriage-and-against-same-sex-marriage/

No religion in this arguement. One of many. Haters going to hate.