Comments | deusexpirata: Gay Marriage

deusexpirata

Gay Marriage

Dec 10, 2004 17:34

There's an article on the BBC website which describes how Canada has legalized gay marriage, and it prompted me to make my own observations on the topic ( Read more... )

Comments 6

anonymous December 29 2004, 21:02:04 UTC

Eh. I think you're missing the big picture here. The question should be whether or not government should have a place AT ALL in marriage. In our bedrooms. Our religions. Our lives. However, I agree that if one marriage is legal, it should all be essentially "legal". Churches are private institutions and States can decide what caps to put on their marriage liscences. If a Church doesn't support gay marriage, good for it, just avoid bringing your cross to the polls if you know what I mean. Maybe an institution should be able to decide rather than having the decision made for it by the Protestant majority. :P Yeah, so, declaring gay marriage unconstitutional is, in itself, unconstitutional and morally repugnant. Default to unregulated freedom or local freedom, either way I don't care so long as it's not this, but not that. Peace out.

Reply! deusexpirata January 10 2005, 08:39:58 UTC

This is something similar to what I've been saying. If a church decides it doesn't want to marry two people because of their sex, that's their perrogative. That's their right, and the government can't do anything about it ( ... )

Re: Reply! anonymous January 23 2005, 04:59:46 UTC

1) Just to clarify: read up on your Locke, the natural rights are Life, Liberty, and Property. The "unalienable" rights as specified in the Declaration of Independence are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Note that in these clauses, it does not end with "as applied to the ability of the right to be taxed by the government ( ... )

Heehee, penis deusexpirata February 22 2005, 20:07:09 UTC

I agree more with this mindset.. not because I'm against the idea of homosexuals being married within the church. I could care less what churches do, but it seems very impractical to expect the government to do something when the only reason the government has any say in marriage is for the purposes of taxation, returns, claims and exceptions included. Taxes are complicated. Marriage shouldn't be, but the two have to be conditionally coordinated. Because you can't expect a gay union to conceive children themselves, and plenty of people have enough volume to bitch about how awful it would be if a gay couple adopted a child and "twisted" him or her into a homosexual, the government can't really take an intelligent position on homosexuality. On the one hand, it can be called natural because it's had a place in human history for thousands of years. On the other hand, it can be called disgusting, perverse and completely unnatural because man and woman complement eachother so wonderfully.. whereas anything else seems a bit grotesque. But ( ... )

Thread 5

*sigh* Love deusexpirata February 22 2005, 19:58:10 UTC

Lalala true love.. not sure I believe in it. I'm not putting it past two homos to love eachother, but something tells me that the lifestyle they've engaged themselves in is mainly sexual in nature. I mean.. defining yourself by sexual preferrence when making this an issue doesn't really help the matter along. It just makes it seem more distant and difficult to resolve. I wonder, can homosexuals become married by commonlaw? Living together too long? Going to Vegas? Canada? Meh, I don't see anyone of the homosexual persuasion responding. I guess it isn't a big deal. And thanks in apostrophe for this not being my problem.

-Sloth