A Europeans point of view.

Quote:

---

And faith comes in many forms... not all people withot "faith" are immoral... I don't need a higher power to tell me that I found my soulmate

---

Just curious. Thanks for the insight.

Well I think you're on to something. And this more or less goes with my point: separation of church in state does not go as far as it does in the other countries you're talking about. Therefore, we have to continue to look at marriage through at least a somewhat religious filter.

Some would say this is a problem. Others would argue it's a strength.

I for one admire that we still have "freedom of religion" in this country without forcing "freedom from religion".

Quote:

---

with this:

---

Aw, c'mon Angelic.... You avoided the question.... You sound like a liberal.... ;)

I repeat the question:-

Quote:

---

So you can lay out demonstrably how two gay people being married "affects the wellbeing" of anyone else in this world. Now let's stay away from "mental anguish" and other such cop outs.... They are brought on by the individuals.

---

You're argument stands on "territory".... "It's our word and we won't let you have it".... Should we throw in some foot-stamping there to give it emphasis? Show me a positive _detrimental_ affect it would have on anyone.... Please.....

Quote:

---

I'm just pointing out that the difference in belief is on a very fundamental level.

---

But yours are still better is what you seem to be saying.... I fully understand that your beliefs are deeply rooted.... What you could do is understand that yourself and do what you said in your earlier post and not try to "impose them on others". While you may think you aren't, in a very subtle way, you are and you agree with that.... As long as the status quo remains in your favor you are imposing your beliefs on me..... It's a fact of life I live with.... When that changes
you will be the "activist" or the "unconventional".

Quote:

---

I try to go beyond that and try and influence people not to detrimentally effect themselves either.

---

Ok... You got me on this one.... How are two people finding happiness to the detriment of none detrimentally affecting themselves???? That's illogical Captain.... ;) There are enough unhappy people in the world and you, through your religious belief, want to make a few more unhappy by denying them a peice of paper.... Gee... That's... er.... "christian"......

Quote:

---

no, as it's not contrived in the first place.

---

It's contrived by human beings 2000 years ago, let's be honest about that..... While I have no problem with you believing it you need to step aside and understand that anything that humans write about any supreme being is "contrived" by the humans themselves.... maybe "contrived" isn't the appropriate word.... But I can't think of a better one... ok...

[Edit]

Quote:

---

I don't need a higher power to tell me that I found my soulmate

---

You might need a higher power to protect her from me though.... ;)

[/Edit]

Quote:

---

Aw, c'mon Angelic.... You avoided the question.... You sound like a liberal....

---

Sorry, it's just I'm used to being fed liberal idealogy on a daily basis and all...I guess they subconsciously rubbed off on me! ;)

I'll take a better go at it then:

Quote:

---

Should we throw in some foot-stamping there to give it emphasis?

---

Heh heh...Don't tempt me! :D

Quote:

---

Show me a positive _detrimental_ affect it would have on anyone

---

Either you meant negative detrimental affect or I'm really confused...I'll assume the former. Well, I have to be careful what I say here or I'll blur the lines of my own stance -- Legally, beyond not letting them "take our word" *foot stomp*, I don't see anything that should be done about it. Let them do as they please, as it's a free country. However, on a personal level, I feel the responsibility to say "Hey, I don't think this is right and here's why" if given the chance to say something. That's because, by my belief, that lifestyle is, on a spiritual level, self-harming. If I can have any hope of influencing them to a better lifestyle (at the risk of sounding arrogant), then that's what I want to do, out of simple concern for my fellow man.

Of course, if you don't believe what I do, then from your perspective, I'm being quite an idiot. ;)

Quote:

---

denying them a peice of paper

---

They can have a piece of paper if they must, just call it something other than marriage. What's so wrong with a civil union or some other term?

Quote:

---

maybe "contrived" isn't the appropriate word.... But I can't think of a better one

---

Ok, I'll bend on that one. Let's say "contrived" to you, "inspired" to me then. My belief is those men were the physical mouths of another higher source, so saying it's contrived by man falls a little short, but I see what you're getting at.

I meant "positive" insofar as there should be an actual detriment. A negative "detriment" is actually a 'positive thing"..... Kinda like maths....

[RANT] Yes, I'm English... It's called friggin' Math_s_... It's short for mathematic_s_!!! Get it.... I hate you Yanks calling it "Math".... There's only one of them????? [RANT OVER ;)]

Quote:

---

Let them do as they please, as it's a free country.

---

Then let them get "married"... How hard is that? We're back to the "territory" thing aren't we?

Quote:

---

I'm being quite an idiot.

---

No you're not.... You are simply taking a position that I find utterly unacceptable at best and utterly illogical at worst.... But it's your belief, you are entitled to it, it's none of my business and you shouldn't, in any way, try to impose it on me be it by trying to "convert me". More importantly you shouldn't apply laws that make me comply with you vision of "right". Is that too difficult for you to live with? If it is then you are letting your religion "blinker" you to the reality of humanity.... Sit back... Think for a few minutes..... Then respond...

We're all human beings..... We see things different ways... Let people live without being a busybody that has to impose their vision of reality on the rest of us....

It would be appreciated by everyone.... really

[taunt]MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH!!![/taunt]

Sorry...couldn't help it... :D

I'm about to be Internetless in a few minutes, so I'll have to respond somewhat quickly...

Quote:

---

We're back to the "territory" thing aren't we?

---

Yep. It's my right to protect it, darn it! ;) *stomps foot*

Quote:

---

More importantly you shouldn't apply laws that make me comply with you vision of "right".

---

I agree with you on that one, to an extent anyway. However, it opens up a whole other can of discussion:

How can any law be passed? Every law is based upon a concept of right and wrong, and any concept of right and wrong can differ from vision to vision.

And so we're off into a discussion of moral objectivity vs. moral relativism...another thread altogether...

Anyway, bottom line is I try to suggest and not impose -- while at the same time protecting "the other side" from imposing itself on me. No easy task.

There is logic behind my belief -- well, mine anyway -- I'll hand you that some believe without the use of logic. But there is logic to be had, just not necessarily easy to be found.

I only read threw page four before I couldn’t keep quite and longer so forgive me if im digressing here (on whatever page this happens to land on)

For the European misunderstanding of the gay marriage issue:

The majority of the people in this country are not opposed to gay unions allowing all the same rights as any other couple. Bush is not opposed to gay unions but most of us including our president are opposed to calling these unions a marriage. The real issue here IMO is that judges can make their personal beliefs into law and allow these marriages without regard to the will of the people, as in the state of California where the issue had been voted upon in the past but over ridden by a judge. I would call this governing without the consent of the governed.

MURACU, you brought up the issue of taxes, now if two men were to marry they would be entitled to a tax break. A tax break meant to ease the burden on families raising children. Its still true that men as a rule make more money than woman, so you have a couple bring in two male salaries getting a tax break just because they got married. Is that fair? The tax structure would have to be changed so two married females would get a tax break because of low wages caused by social injustice and males that marry would have to pay more in taxes for the same reason. Then comes the controversy between the states that allow same sex marriages and those that do not. Is all this really necessary when a civil union would fill the bill?

Tigershark, in regard to your abortion being none of your business statement, if you saw a kid had tied two cats together by their tails and was about to throw them over a cloths line or you saw a man beating a young girl in the street unmercifully, would you do nothing? I see doctors allowed to drive stakes threw partially born human children’s heads because someone has had second thoughts about giving birth or is pissed off at her husband or boyfriend. It’s my duty to at least voice an objection.

Now if like zorba the greek I made pottery for a living and decided my pinkies were an inconvenience what can I do about it. If I cut them off id be arrested for harming myself while every doctor around would refuse to amputate because they’d loose their license for performing unnecessary surgery. If I brought it before a judge s/he’d tell me to deal with it. yet ending a pregnancy, even in the late stages is done without giving a second thought. Isn’t abortion surgery? Isn’t an entire human life as important as a pinky? Some say a fetus is not a life. I say it is and I vote.

Where does it say we must make our laws around scientific reasoning?

I don’t believe ‘all’ abortion should be made illegal. Certainly partial birth abortion should be banned unless the woman’s health is at risk. I don’t think having an abortion in general should be approached with such a serendipitous frame of mind, where a woman can end a pregnancy (to me, a life) even if her husband objects saying that the man has nothing to do with it. (I say he does and I vote.) What would be the harm in demanding a woman talk to a councilor first or get a “prescription” from a doctor. The objection to this at the time of the passing of the abortion anarchy (it certainly doesn’t resemble law) was almost all of the councilors and doctors were male, but that’s not true anymore. This is my society as much as it is everyone else’s, and I think abortion as a form of planned parenthood is not acceptable. If I didn’t object to it I would be condoning it, so therefore that makes it my business for I have a moral responsibility to myself. If society disagrees than so be it. At least ive done what is right for me and isn’t that what it’s all about.

Tedob Actually they wouldnt be entitled to a tax break. They are taxed the same as a married hetro couple without kids so the tax system doesnt need to be modified. That may be good or bad for the couple.
The civil union idea is exactly what the PACs is. It allows gay couples to have the same legal security in a union as a hetro couple. The proof that it works is as I said that gay and hetro couples use it.

negative

Quote:

---

divorced people aren't allowed to remarry for the Roman Catholic church - because it's a sin, I guess

---

The problem is the RC Church does not reconise a civil divorce. As such unless you get an annulment of your marriage from the church you are still married in the eyes of the church and as the catholic church isnt big into bigamie you cant get remarried. :D

Quote:

---

The majority of the people in this country are not opposed to gay unions allowing all the same rights as any other couple. Bush is not opposed to gay unions but most of us including our president are opposed to calling these unions a marriage.

---

If this is the case I fully agree.

Interesting side note.
In my hometown in the netherlands (gay-marriage is legal over here) a governmental clerk got fired because she refused to 'marry' a gay couple. She got fired, took it to court and got reinstated.
Link (in dutch)

Quote:

---

AngelicKnight stated:
I am weary of amending it more as some other conservatives seem to be eager to do.

---

I thought Conservative means "tending to oppose change.".. Guess my dictionary is wrong..

Quote:

---

And those 600,000 are affecting the millions of us who still hold on to opposing fundamental values.

---

And we've all seen what fundamentalism leads to..
(or is their fundamentalism for some reason wrong and yours right??)

Quote:

---

Tedob1 stated:
.. but most of us including our president are opposed to calling these unions a marriage.

---

Now let's not call it a marriage, but a nerriage.. I mean, realy, what's the difference..
Ow no, don't call it a marriage.. It never seizes to amaze me how people can fall over a word..

It's not just a word Jinx, it's an entire concept, something that once used to be considered "sacred".

"Sacred" is as good as a four-letter word in the eyes of many today though, as is "fundamental".

So yes, some fundamental concepts are good (what I'm talking about) and others are bad (psycho-fundamentalist terrorists, for example). I know libs don't like to hear that, but such is where I stand anyway.

Conservative means to conserve, not to resist change. ;) To resist change in general is idiotic. But to conserve, preserve, protect the base of who we are -- that's what conservativism is for me.