There are reasons to have marriage tied into social welfare-related programs that involve the government, like tax breaks for families raising children, consideration for school funding, census data, programs that take into account number of dependents claimed, whether or not you're providing for just 1, 2, or more people with what you earn, etc. etc.
So... I think that marriage has a point, and I understand (even if I don't fully agree with) why the government is involved. That's just to answer some of the sentiments of "the government should stay out of marriage".
That being said, I absolutely believe in marriage equality. To me, it makes no sense to interpret an attempt to prevent gay people from marrying as anything short of ethically reprehensible barbarism. Liberty is not something that should be conditional upon one's emotional feelings of love.
There are militant gay groups that would force religious leaders into performing the marriage ceremony if it was made legal. These groups would claim that religion promotes hatred towards gays. And that may be true in most cases.
I feel that all people should have the same legal rights. If two consenting adults want to get married, then who am I to prevent that happening? But I also believe that religious leaders should have the right not to perform the ceremony. In the same way that religious leaders should have the right to not marry a couple from different faiths, or if one or more of the couple is an atheist.
Not sure if I should have burst out laughing or not... "militant gay groups" and "force religious leaders" though, I couldn't help but guffaw there. Pretty heartily, too.
Any uh, stats on these militant gays who peculiarly WANT to be married by religious groups that vehemently oppose gay marriage? I mean, I could be wrong, maybe they exist. Can you link a reputable source that details such behavior?
I, too, don't think any religious group should be FORCED to preform marriages, but I've really never seen nor even heard of this problem before.
They're classified as 'lawful civil partnerships' in the UK. They have the same legal rights as married couples but they are not 'married' as such.
For some people that is not equal enough. And maybe they have a point. But if at some stage the law was to call 'lawful civil partnerships' marriages then I could see serious problems arising from that.
lol. Militant as in 'aggressive activists' using the threat of legal action against anyone who disagree with them.
I don't know if I can add links here.
There's the "Gay couple (lawful civil partnership) turned away from Christian guesthouse win discrimination case." on the thisisdevon website. They weren't turned away as such. The owner wouldn't let them have a double bedroom. She said she would have done the same if the couple were straight and unmarried. The court ruled against her even though they could have had two single bed rooms if they were available.
Do you believe in equal marriage?
← View full post
There are reasons to have marriage tied into social welfare-related programs that involve the government, like tax breaks for families raising children, consideration for school funding, census data, programs that take into account number of dependents claimed, whether or not you're providing for just 1, 2, or more people with what you earn, etc. etc.
So... I think that marriage has a point, and I understand (even if I don't fully agree with) why the government is involved. That's just to answer some of the sentiments of "the government should stay out of marriage".
That being said, I absolutely believe in marriage equality. To me, it makes no sense to interpret an attempt to prevent gay people from marrying as anything short of ethically reprehensible barbarism. Liberty is not something that should be conditional upon one's emotional feelings of love.
--
dybex
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There are militant gay groups that would force religious leaders into performing the marriage ceremony if it was made legal. These groups would claim that religion promotes hatred towards gays. And that may be true in most cases.
I feel that all people should have the same legal rights. If two consenting adults want to get married, then who am I to prevent that happening? But I also believe that religious leaders should have the right not to perform the ceremony. In the same way that religious leaders should have the right to not marry a couple from different faiths, or if one or more of the couple is an atheist.
--
♫Diamonds♫
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Not sure if I should have burst out laughing or not... "militant gay groups" and "force religious leaders" though, I couldn't help but guffaw there. Pretty heartily, too.
Any uh, stats on these militant gays who peculiarly WANT to be married by religious groups that vehemently oppose gay marriage? I mean, I could be wrong, maybe they exist. Can you link a reputable source that details such behavior?
I, too, don't think any religious group should be FORCED to preform marriages, but I've really never seen nor even heard of this problem before.
--
dybex
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
dybex
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
They're classified as 'lawful civil partnerships' in the UK. They have the same legal rights as married couples but they are not 'married' as such.
For some people that is not equal enough. And maybe they have a point. But if at some stage the law was to call 'lawful civil partnerships' marriages then I could see serious problems arising from that.
lol. Militant as in 'aggressive activists' using the threat of legal action against anyone who disagree with them.
I don't know if I can add links here.
There's the "Gay couple (lawful civil partnership) turned away from Christian guesthouse win discrimination case." on the thisisdevon website. They weren't turned away as such. The owner wouldn't let them have a double bedroom. She said she would have done the same if the couple were straight and unmarried. The court ruled against her even though they could have had two single bed rooms if they were available.