Gays can't marry. Athiests and murderers can?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I agree. Gay marriages should be allowed. If the God squad want marriage to be a solely religious thing then all legal recognition (and special treatment because of) it should be immediately scrapped. There should be no special tax band for married couples, no inheritance laws. Nothing like that. If marriage is a legal institution (as I contend) then it should be open to anyone to marry anyone else.

So what do you think about offering gay couples civil unions? With all of the legal benefits of marriage of course. Then the christians could still have their spiritual "marriage" and anyone could legally enter into a union with anyone else.

Originally posted by Conrau K
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

This is what they cite as evidence:

- Homosexual relationships do not yield the same health benefits conferred on heterosexual partners
- Same-sex marriage would increase the divorce rate
- Same-sex marriage lacks the complementariness in heterosexual relationships and is hence less fulfilling.

Similar arguments could be made against mixed race marriage or marriage between partners of different faiths. But is that a good enough reason to make them illegal?
The problem with claiming that marriage is a social thing and gay marriage will harm society is that many gay people are already living together as if married and the only change will be the legal aspect and not the social aspect. If anything a legalizing and political acceptance of their relationship may actually lead to stronger longer term relationships.
The arguments presented also do not provide alternatives. What other options do gay people have? 1. Live together but not married. 2. Marry heterosexually and cause the same three points but worse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Similar arguments could be made against mixed race marriage or marriage between partners of different faiths. But is that a good enough reason to make them illegal?
The problem with claiming that marriage is a social thing and gay marriage will hard society is that many gay people are already living together as if married and the only change will be the ...[text shortened]... ive together but not married. 2. Marry heterosexually and cause the same three points but worse.

I completely agree. Many homosexuals are already living together, and registering their relationships in marriage could only be of benefit.

Personally, I'm a gay, a murderer and an atheist and proud of my abilities in all these realms of endeavour. However, I don't think you other self-righteous punks need to tell me whether I am allowed to get married or not. Marriage is a form of contract between two consenting entities. If my partner and I both want to get married, we can- and it has nothing to do with the rest of you. I could of course also propose a contract between myself and my dog, or a tree at the bottom of the garden, but whether this would comprise a marriage is the real moot point, as it is difficult to prove or disprove approval and consent from a dog, and more so from a tree.

When did this even become a "spritual" question? While some people do choose to include a diety in their marrriage, isn't is a state institution?

Originally posted by Anthony Paton
Personally, I'm a gay, a murderer and an atheist and proud of my abilities in all these realms of endeavour. However, I don't think you other self-righteous punks need to tell me whether I am allowed to get married or not. Marriage is a form of contract between two consenting entities. If my partner and I both want to get married, we can- and it has ...[text shortened]... it is difficult to prove or disprove approval and consent from a dog, and more so from a tree.

Well said! (except the bit about being a murderer, unless you mean pro-abortion)

Originally posted by whiterose
So what do you think about offering gay couples civil unions? With all of the legal benefits of marriage of course. Then the christians could still have their spiritual "marriage" and anyone could legally enter into a union with anyone else.

Personally, I think it has to be the same for all, or for none. Why don't Christians have purely religious ceremony called whatever they want, AND a legal ceremony called, lets say, a civil union.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Personally, I think it has to be the same for all, or for none. Why don't Christians have purely religious ceremony called whatever they want, AND a legal ceremony called, lets say, a civil union.

Because they believe that marriage is not just spiritual but social

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Personally, I think it has to be the same for all, or for none. Why don't Christians have purely religious ceremony called whatever they want, AND a legal ceremony called, lets say, a civil union.

Exactly. Why not call the the religious ceremony a marriage and the legal ceremony a civil union. That way, christians can still have their separate "marriage" and maybe they will stop bothering everyone else with objections to perfectly reasonable civil unions.

Originally posted by whiterose
Exactly. Why not call the the religious ceremony a marriage and the legal ceremony a civil union. That way, christians can still have their separate "marriage" and maybe they will stop bothering everyone else with objections to perfectly reasonable civil unions.

I'd agree provided that a Christian marriage is not a legally recognised institution. If they then validated that with a civil union it's all good.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'd agree provided that a Christian marriage is not a legally recognised institution. If they then validated that with a civil union it's all good.

What is the point in that?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'd agree provided that a Christian marriage is not a legally recognised institution. If they then validated that with a civil union it's all good.

I don't know about other countries, but in Germany it works the other way round, but the result is basically the same (although there aren't two different words for it) - you need to get legally married in a registry office first, then you can get a Christian marriage in addition if you want. The latter doesn't have any legal consequences outside the church.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What is the point in that?

If marriage is to be a legal contract then it should be open to everyone. If it is ceremonial then it should be voluntary and not legally binding. If Christians want both the legal recognition and the recognition before God they should do both.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I don't know about other countries, but in Germany it works the other way round, but the result is basically the same (although there aren't two different words for it) - you need to get legally married in a registry office first, then you can get a Christian marriage in addition if you want. The latter doesn't have any legal consequences outside the church.

yes, this is exactly how it should be IMO.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If marriage is to be a legal contract then it should be open to everyone. If it is ceremonial then it should be voluntary and not legally binding. If Christians want both the legal recognition and the recognition before God they should do both.

Why can't a marriage be both? In Australia a priest has authorization to perform a marriage ceremony as a representative of their church. They perform the same role as a civil celebrant.