EPTMen marrying other men is $$$.
Even if your all about women its totally in your interest to marry a man for more money through the way household incomes work. Its quite a bit of cash too!
UK to legalise gay marriage, religious exemptions - Page 27
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
Men marrying other men is $$$. Even if your all about women its totally in your interest to marry a man for more money through the way household incomes work. Its quite a bit of cash too! | ||
KwarK
United States42989 Posts
On December 22 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote: of course not... I think part of being treated like a normal human being is having freedom of religion. Anyway, my point is just that going about this with legal means is a category error and a stupid strategic mistake on the part of gay people. But this ideology of foolish formal 'equality' is pretty deeply entrenched and maybe no more blows against it will be struck here. edit: look, the only way someone can countenance this law is by thinking that religion is stupid and that all religious people are stupid. I know that you guys think this, and I know that you feel very self-righteous in this belief. So you should stop pretending and just demand that we outlaw religion. My comrades the bolsheviks would be proud. So where do I gain the ability to object to the demands of secular authority and refuse to participate in something I disagree with? Does that ever apply? If so, when, and under what circumstances? Of course you can object to the demands of secular authority. You can protest and you can make petitions and write to your representatives and form lobbying groups or even engage in civil disobedience. Your protests may not be listened to and you may end up in court for your civil disobedience but you have every option available to everyone else in a democratic society. I have no interest in outlawing religion because religion is just a personal belief/conviction and those should have no bearing upon what people do. I wish to see the actions of a person regulated. Freedom of religion does not mean, nor has ever meant, the freedom to do whatever the fuck you like to another person. That's why you can't kill Arabs and not be punished, even though the Pope (not the current one) said that doing so would guarantee your passage to heaven. The belief may be religious but the action associated with it is secular and falls under secular law. This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of religion and your continued assertion that it is a new and threatening thing for the law to tell you you can't do anything you like as long as it is justified by religious belief is absurd. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:18 KwarK wrote: religion is just a personal belief/conviction and those should have no bearing upon what people do. I think this is a staggeringly foolish statement. What else would have a bearing on what one does? edit: you're confusing the issue. it's not about the right to "do something" to somebody else. It's about the right to "not do something" to someone, namely direct at them the speech act "I now pronounce you married" edit: the action is not secular. The secular action is how the government treats their marriage. Marrying somebody in a church is not a secular action. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42989 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:19 sam!zdat wrote: I think this is a staggeringly foolish statement. What else would have a bearing on what one does? Sorry, I'll clarify. On the legality of what people do. Something doesn't become more acceptable simply because the individual doing it has the conviction that it should be acceptable. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: this conversation has made the victorians make much, much more sense to me, by the way, so thanks for that  edit: I edited this in earlier but I want to make sure you catch the point, that I believe the state can and should impose a doctrine of marriage equality on the church of england | ||
|
KwarK
United States42989 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:19 sam!zdat wrote: edit: the action is not secular. The secular action is how the government treats their marriage. Marrying somebody in a church is not a secular action. This is probably the crux of the issue. I believe that it is. I believe that it is a service that is available to the general public for a price, as evidenced by the fact that any two members of the general public of opposite sexes can book a church and a priest to hold the ceremony as long as they pay his fee. As such it falls under discrimination law (and the law in the UK agrees with me on this, that's why they would need the exemption) so they could not legally refuse an interracial couple for example. While I understand that in the subjective minds of the religious there is additional meaning to a marriage in the secular eyes of the law it is simply a ceremony, a service for sale. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
 edit: but what you say here makes me dig in my heels, of course, being adamantly opposed to any further colonization of the life-world by the logic of the market with its "services" and "commodities" | ||
|
KwarK
United States42989 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:22 sam!zdat wrote: So what does make something acceptable? Oddly enough what I believe makes things acceptable is largely influenced by a bearded hippie from two thousand years ago. Namely treating others as you would want to be treated, being generally fair to others regardless of their background, not judging people and not harming other people unnecessarily. I believe that the church has somewhat lost their way on that one as it is an extremely conservative institution and generally derives its ethics from its members, predominantly old people who tend to be more racist, homophobic and sexist due to their upbringing. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: I agree that it's stupid, backwards, and immoral to deny gay people getting married in your church. I'm proud to be a resident of a state in which gay people can get married, I think it's the absolute shit and I've been totally geeking out over pictures of adorable old gay people getting married over the last month or so. This is totally separate from what I'm concerned about. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42989 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:28 sam!zdat wrote: So if you believe it's a service that should be offered for a price, open it up to the market and let competition solve the problem. That's y'all liberals' solution to everything, right? edit: but what you say here makes me dig in my heels, of course, being adamantly opposed to any further colonization of the life-world by the logic of the market with its "services" and "commodities" Er, I'm not the one selling it, the church is. If it wasn't a publicly available commercial service they wouldn't be in this mess. The law can't force me to marry two gays because I'm not in the business of marrying two anythings. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/12/14/enhanced-buzz-wide-18287-1355339780-3.jpg | ||
|
KwarK
United States42989 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:32 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, but the church sees itself as being in the business of marrying a man and a woman. That is their service. When you say "you should marry a man and a man" that is nonsensical to them. I don't feel it's (a) philosophically sound or (b) strategically wise to go about solving the problem in this particular way. And I'm sure white only restaurants see themselves as being in the business of providing an environment where whites can enjoy a good meal without having to hear those loud coloured families ruining everyone's evening but they still fall under anti discrimination law. At this point you're opposing the application of anti discrimination law itself in circumstances when it contradicts the beliefs of the discriminators rather than this specific scenario I think? | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:32 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, but the church sees itself as being in the business of marrying a man and a woman. That is their service. When you say "you should marry a man and a man" that is nonsensical to them. I don't feel it's (a) philosophically sound or (b) strategically wise to go about solving the problem in this particular way. It's not nonsensical to them. It makes perfect sense to them. They just don't want to do it. You can't define bigotry into your terms of service and expect a secular law to take you seriously. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:36 Klondikebar wrote: It's not nonsensical to them. It makes perfect sense to them. They just don't want to do it. You can't define bigotry into your terms of service and expect a secular law to take you seriously. I know you mean well, but you should try to be a more thoughtful person. They don't want to do it because it doesn't make sense to them. edit: at any rate, I'm about to walk out the door and leave town so I might not reply for a bit, if at all. cheers | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote: I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief, I do feel that the belief "marriage is about procreation" is a valid religious belief, even if I disagree with it. I don't think the situations are analogous. I would dispute the claim that refusing to marry a gay couple is analogous to denying blacks service at your restaurant. Of course drawing lines between things is always difficult, but I feel confident that the line exists somewhere in between these two things. I know you mean well, but you should try to be a more thoughtful person. They don't want to do it because it doesn't make sense to them. How am I the thoughtless one? You're treating them like confused children who can't understand even understand a complete sentence. I think they're rational adults and subject to the laws just the same as everyone else. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case. If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:17 sam!zdat wrote: Nah, you just don't catch my point. Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist? edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture. edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy I could agree to / understand your first lines, but your edits make no sense. Are you talking about people who believe women above 45 shouldn't get married, or sterile people shouldn't get married? You lost me. Marriage is a legal matter and a religious one. State should not be able to discriminate by marriage, but you could argue that church CAN, because their ceremony is or should be without benefit and so can't be discriminatory in itself. Say, being the only one who doesn't receive tax benefits cause you are sexually different is discriminating. But not having a priest declare you married could be seen as not discriminating, as this has no benefit, and is perhaps a personal matter of faith. As long as it's a personal matter of no "legal" or real consequence to others, it's fine. Anything else isn't. But saying marriage is this or that, and THEN exclude others and everything that legally goes with it is very wrong and very discriminating, and in your case plain false. | ||
|
Zedders
Canada450 Posts
| ||
| ||
