This is a continuation of the Marriage or Union: Homosexuality and the Redefinition thread.

Bump.  As Heath pointed out, if this is going to be a serious discussion and not just an aside, please put it in the appropriate forum to avoid confusion.

   Okay, since it was my comment that brought this up before, I'll ask again (albeit in a slightly different form) ... what right does the government have to make a law outlawing any form of marriage other than that between one male and one female?

I am thinking that we can accept that the government has the right to define law, and interpret law, so I am thinking that we agree that they have the right. The question of why they can deny or accept the conditions of marriage is what would make it clear for the various views on this. Can I ask what you define marriage as?

Additionally, do respect different views on the matter? Is it safe to give my opinion if it isn't the same as yours?

Not in the US, I would argue the Federal (not state) government has no right to define any law beyond what is permitted by its charter, the Constitution.  I see nothing in that document which seems to have any bearing on marriage or recognizing any form thereof.  So no, the US Federal government does not have that particular 'right'.  Of course, in Canada, that argument does not hold.

Interesting, I did not know that.

Right, in Canada, it's already legal. They still have plenty of laws that need to be reworded due to that change, but over all, apparently it's a lot of rewriting laws now to fit the new definition.

When the law took effect, it wasn't even legal, it just wasn't illegal. For almost a year there was a time period where you could get married to the same sex, but you could not get a divorce, as the laws were not written to apply to same sex. I'm not sure where they are in catching all the laws that mention marriage to be rewritten to apply to the new definition.

I think a part of the fear of legalizing same sex marriage is that it will eventually lead to pastors being forced perform same-sex marriages or be accused of discrimination.  If you allow same sex marriage and you regularily rent out your building for marriage cerimonies, the gay rights activists could come in and force you to go against your convictions and allow gay marriages to be prefomed in your buildings.

It's also another step toward silencing pastors from teaching that homosexuality is biblically sinful.  Already the hate crimes act is trying to make it a hate crime to preach from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin.  I understand that part of it is a knee-jerk reactions to people like the "God hates fags" clown, but gay marriage would be another arrow in the quiver of activists to push for that kind of legislation.

*** But see, while I agree that they can define and interpret law, I don't think that gives them the right to create an unjust law.


I'd define marriage (more or less), as a legal contract between consenting parties which defines the nature and scope of their relationship, and is recognised by all other outside parties as legally binding.


*** I ... I respect others right to have differing opinions. I can't in all honesty say that I respect all other opinions, as I think some of them are completely and utterly wrong. Certainly everyone has the right to their own opinion, and I'd never want to deny someone that right. As far as whether it's safe ... <wry grin> I already know we disagree, and I know neither of us will convince the other, so ... <shrug>.


*** Okay, I suppose I'm dumb, but why would someone want to be married by someone they had to force into doing the job?


*** Now see this one I can see, tho' I'd still think there were ways around it (only rent the building to members of your own congregation, perhaps?), but I'm still unconvinced that the good gained outweighs the evil caused.


*** Now see, this one I don't see. The reason is becos if one is preaching from the Bible, what the law says is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if one is preaching from a lawbook. Changing the law doesn't change what the Bible says. Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say that being gay (or anything else) is a sin. Talks a lot about how various behaviours are sinful, but doesn't say just being a certain way is wrong, so if someone is preaching that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin, then yeah, I can see why it'd get classified as a hate crime. Why not say being black is a sin? Or being female? Or Gentile, for that matter?
This message was last edited by the player at 06:14, Tue 04 Mar 2008.