Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We have moved to http://tspforums.xyz/. Please join us at the new site.
This forum is archived and posting has been disabled. You do not need to register to access previously hidden areas. If you see any personally identifiable information, please alert the current Admin Team so that it can be moved to a private setting.
Welcome to The South Pacific Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What is your opinion on same-sex marriages?
Right on! 12 (30%)
A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. 8 (20%)
Absolutely not. 2 (5%)
Well, if they want to then, hey... 18 (45%)
Total Votes: 40
Purely out of curiousity...
Topic Started: Feb 4 2004, 07:42 PM (801 Views)
Yulia
Member Avatar


*Shrug* I'm just wondering what people's opinions are, since Georgey-boy insists it's got to be a "union between a man and a woman." Of course, not that that's a problem... *Whistles innocently and walks away*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hoydonia
Somewhere inbetween, the truth lies.

Yulia, my thoughts are that my government (U.S), should get out of the idea of sanctioning marriages altogether.

You get married in a church according to the governing laws of whatever religion you belong to. Done. Everybody is happy in your church. You party :D

For the purposes of a civil union between two consenting adults, the government issues a civil union decree, not a marriage certificate. This is done for everyone, even those who will have a church wedding later.

So, for a same sex marriage to take place, all that is needed is a church that is accepting of same sex marriages. You get married. You party :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chewdogus


I really don't care. Whatever floats the boat! :D

If they realy love each other, then why not!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yulia
Member Avatar


Hoydonia
Feb 4 2004, 11:06 PM
Yulia, my thoughts are that my government  (U.S), should get out of the idea of sanctioning  marriages altogether.

You get married in a church according to the governing laws of whatever religion you belong to.  Done. Everybody is happy in your church. You party :D

For the purposes of a civil union between two consenting adults, the government issues a civil union decree, not a marriage certificate. This is done for everyone, even those who will have a church wedding later.

So, for a same sex marriage to take place, all that is needed is a church that is accepting of same sex marriages. You get married. You party  :D

Well, legally, a lot of the states are forbidding same-sex marriages... *Shrug* The only ones that come to mind that just simply have no laws banning it what-so-ever are New Mexico, Wisconsin and California... D.C. doesn't either, but the point is that in the U.S. it's rather difficult to find same-sex-marriage-friendly churches...
Or perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Who knows?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hoydonia
Somewhere inbetween, the truth lies.

Yulia
Feb 4 2004, 08:22 PM
the point is that in the U.S. it's rather difficult to find same-sex-marriage-friendly churches...

First off Yulia, this is my view and not current U.S law. You cannot force a church to recognize and accept something it is fundamentally against.

So for the interests of affording equal rights under the law, a civil union is all you need.
If a church marriage is also necessary, then a same sex accepting church is the only way to accomplish this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bistmath


originally in canada, gay marriage was put forth to force companies to give equal health care rights to same sex partners.

really its all about tax breaks and extra health coverage..
however, the church i go to in canada, the ucc, has been trying to sanction this for years. they've performed ceremonies of recognition etc. it kinda blew me away that someone would think its a bad idea.

i think we should have equal rights down the line, rich/poor, male/female, any colour of the rainbow of ethnicity and race, gay/straight/asexual.

be happy, live freely and love one another. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yulia
Member Avatar


bistmath
Feb 4 2004, 11:53 PM
originally in canada, gay marriage was put forth to force companies to give equal health care rights to same sex partners.

really its all about tax breaks and extra health coverage..
however, the church i go to in canada, the ucc, has been trying to sanction this for years. they've performed ceremonies of recognition etc. it kinda blew me away that someone would think its a bad idea.

i think we should have equal rights down the line, rich/poor, male/female, any colour of the rainbow of ethnicity and race, gay/straight/asexual.

be happy, live freely and love one another. :D

Agreed, but sadly, few people actually think like that. More often than not, people take into consideration certain prejudices and stereotypes and base their morals off of them before they can be "corrupted" and simply be open minded... *Shrug* I just don't know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
God-Emperor
Leto II

Quote:
 
my government (U.S), should get out of the idea of sanctioning marriages altogether


I'd like that too accept that volumes of tax and legal code would have to be rewritten which would result in us payin' the government more money.

Quote:
 
Well, legally, a lot of the states are forbidding same-sex marriages...


Well, legally, the federal government forbids same sex marriages.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bistmath


and thank god it does. the illegality of gay marriage in your country is helping to save the city i live in.

lots and lots of couples are coming up here to get married and while they're at it, spending all kinds of cash in toronto. it's helping us to get back the billion dollars lost due to sars.

the gay community has done more to get this city back on its feet than the rolling stones ever did.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
God-Emperor
Leto II

Well, interior decorators do make some good money. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mearnskirk
Retired Undertaker

bistmath
Feb 5 2004, 04:53 AM
i think we should have equal rights down the line, rich/poor, male/female, any colour of the rainbow of ethnicity and race, gay/straight/asexual.

be happy, live freely and love one another. :D

I have a strange feeling of déjà-vu...... ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fudgie
Guy Fawkes' Campaign Manager

In a biblical sense, marriage is for the begetting of children. Yet how many, male/female couples choose not to have childern, or in more unfortunate circumstances, cannot concieve?

Does this make their union wrong? Of course not.

Love is wonderful thing. It lifts our emotions, it makes us happy, we are satisfied in life, and hell, it makes us nicer people. If you love someone, regardless of their gender, age, height, hair/eye/skin colour, income, etc, and you wish to commit to that relationship by signing a piece of paper and making vows, then you should have the right to do so. (personally I think marriage is just a piece of paper, but that is a whole other argument).

By making same sex marriages illegal, and not recognising the rights of a same sex couples, the government is just facilitating one more way of tightening the social leash.

However, progress is being made, and Canada is to be applauded for it's reforms on the matter. Australia is still way behind in many senses, gay couples cannot apply for family coverage in health care, there is no recognition of partners in will, and basically a gay union cannot be sanctified by law. Couples can have a commtiment ceremony, along the lines of a marriage ceremony, but this is not a legal, binding ceremony.

It is still illegal for consenting adult homosexuals to have sex in Tasmania!

I think it is sad, that in a countries that profess to be world leaders in human rights *cough*, a basic right to show the love between a couple is denied.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mearnskirk
Retired Undertaker

fudgetopia
Feb 5 2004, 01:08 PM
I think it is sad, that in a countries that profess to be world leaders in human rights *cough*, a basic right to show the love between a couple is denied.

Which country are you talking about? ;) *cou-aborigines-gh* *cou-asylumseekers-gh* :D

I assume the basic right thing you're talking about is the Tasmanian sex law? Because all the other things you mention do not actually prevent a couple from showing their love for each other.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fudgie
Guy Fawkes' Campaign Manager

I used the word 'countries', if you read my post correctly.

I was stating that countries such as the US, Australia and the like deny the rights of people wishing to express their love for each other and be recognised as a union for it. That is the entire context of my post.

Quote:
 
*cou-aborigines-gh* *cou-asylumseekers-gh*


Don't judge my country for the decisions of it's pompous jacked up government. Not all of us think with our heads up our backsides.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hoydonia
Somewhere inbetween, the truth lies.

fudgetopia
Feb 5 2004, 05:08 AM
By making same sex marriages illegal, and not recognising the rights of a same sex couples, the government is just facilitating one more way of tightening the social leash.

This is why goverments need to get out of issuing marriage licenses and issue a civil rights decree.

A civil rights decree affords all rights under a government, currently available only to married couples, and doesn't offend any churches who are against gay marriage and feel that, by government granting of a marriage license somehow undermines their religion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fudgie
Guy Fawkes' Campaign Manager

I'm right with you on that Hazel. I couldn't agree any more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nan
filosofi Doktor

In Sweden, gay couples have all the same rights under their national laws as other persons married or just living together. Other than that, they've left the marriage ceremony question to the churche(s). I don't think they have a legal document because they don't need one at that point.
And, GE - about it costing us money in the US is conservative drivel. None of that is true in the more enlightened countries and wouldn't be true here in the US. We certainly feel free to rewrite the codes and spend the taxpayers money on the false homeland security and other backward ideas. I'd rather see it put toward building society and education, health and the welfare of the people.

- I have friends who are cmmitted,gay and raising beautiful children - it's much better than some married man-woman friends have done.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fudgie
Guy Fawkes' Campaign Manager

That's interesting to know Nan ... I never knew that about Sweden.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hoydonia
Somewhere inbetween, the truth lies.

Sweden Rocks :) and this systemworks out to where everyone is happy too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nan
filosofi Doktor

That's usually what they aim for in their laws...some kind of justice and equality. Sometimes the system breaks down, but largely they do a good job with the "middle way" and leave the moral judgments to the individual. And believe me there is plenty of moral judgment - they just hammer it out Democratically.... An amazing thought ;)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mearnskirk
Retired Undertaker

fudgetopia
Feb 5 2004, 01:39 PM
I used the word 'countries', if you read my post correctly.

Sorry Fudge, but you said "a countries", so it wasn't clear whether you were referring to one country or multiple countries, and as you only mentioned one such country in your post I took it to be in the singular.
Quote:
 
I was stating that countries such as the US, Australia and the like deny the rights of people wishing to express their love for each other and be recognised as a union for it.  That is the entire context of my post.
And I was pointing out that being recognised as a union is a completely different issue from being allowed to express love for each other.
Quote:
 
Don't judge my country for the decisions of it's pompous jacked up government.  Not all of us think with our heads up our backsides.
I sincerely apologise if my dig at your government's human rights record was offensive. On the other hand, how else can one judge the standard of human rights in a country? In criticising the actions of a government, I know that those actions do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the entire population, or even a majority of the population. I'm sure there must be lots of people in the US who do not agree with people being imprisoned without trial, but the fact remains that people are still locked up in Guantanamo Bay.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mearnskirk
Retired Undertaker

Nan
Feb 5 2004, 02:11 PM
And, GE - about it costing us money in the US is conservative drivel.

To be fair, I think he was just referring to the administrative costs of actually rewriting the tax codes etc.

GE - I think you'll find that the codes are very regularly rewritten for all sorts of other reasons, so assuming this was just phased in as most other tax changes are, the costs would be effectively zero.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nan
filosofi Doktor

I wish we could do something about that mearnskirk! But the belief that we actually have control of our governments actions is giving way to the experience that we do not, as a people, have as much power as we thought.
:(
I start civil dialogues as a hobby... ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TOOL a HOO
Member Avatar


In BC, gay marriage it completly legal. Gays can adopt, they have all the same rights, including; insurance benificeries, right to spouse representation in emergiencies and even widow/widower pention. Even a single gay person can adopt. Gays and non-gays alike have been fighting for quite a while for rights and I applod there dilegence.

The churched are all different, some allow it and some do not, which leads to quite abit of confusion to those who dont understand.

My problem is that I'm not gay, and therefore don't understand it, neither try to. Its just the way it is, there has always been gays even in the ancients. My brother is gay, and I see his advertisty and pursecution so, I try my best to have empathy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fudgie
Guy Fawkes' Campaign Manager

Mearnskirk
Feb 6 2004, 12:56 AM
I'm sure there must be lots of people in the US who do not agree with people being imprisoned without trial, but the fact remains that people are still locked up in Guantanamo Bay.

I'm one of them. What gives the US the right to hold an Australian citizen and deny them the right to legal representation and family contact.


That however is entirely off topic, and irrelevant to this thread.

And yes, I am offended that you brought up the issue of asylum seekers and aborigines. If you bothered to do research, you would find that a majority of the popuation here is against the government's rulings on this issue. Whilst a country is defined by it's ruling body, it is not always the beleif of the people.

Let's get this topic back at hand please?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Old Games, Polls, and Quizzes · Next Topic »
Add Reply