NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm in the mood for a debate. Please tell me why gay marriage should not be allowed in a strictly "separation of church and state" nation, taking note of the fact that by legalizing gay marriage, no church has to perform the marriage and that marriage could include merely a marriage liscense.
Debate only, please. No flames or insults.

Meh, just bump one of the other 50000 threads on this topic.

You know I saw a picture recently of some idiot protestors. Their signs read things like "Say yes to Jesus and no to gay civil unions."
I mean WTF? I can understand that some people are delusiional and see marraige as something exclusive to their religion which must be protected at all costs but no to civil unions as well? That's just a gross assualt on the rights of individuals based on intolerance and misunderstanding.

There is no reason why gays shouldn't be able to marry.

...I mean, really. "Traditional Values"? Well, if "Traditional Values" only apply to Western Montheism as valid, then sure, no gay marriage. But as it stands, one cannot claim that it's not violating the seperation of church and state. Which is why I support the banning of ALL marriage! Marriage is overrated, anyways! ;) So, I have to say that if a nation believes in seperation of church and state, then there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.

So, I have to say that if a nation believes in seperation of church and state, then there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.
Treason! You must never denounce the Lord Our God! I mean, after all, he did give President George Walker Bush a mandate to be in office. How could God ever be wrong? Damn godless commies...with your secularism...

The only argument I have seen that could be posed is that in a government with emphasis on separation of church and state, the word "marriage" is traditionally a Christian word which is defined as union between a man and woman. So not only is the word marriage incorrect, but it also could possibly piss off some zealots. Might as well just not step on any toes and call it gay fshnorgle or w/e you want :O

The only argument I have seen that could be posed is that in a government with emphasis on separation of church and state, the word "marriage" is traditionally a Christian word which is defined as union between a man and woman. So not only is the word marriage incorrect, but it also could possibly piss off some zealots. Might as well just not step on any toes and call it gay fshnorgle or w/e you want :O
But these same people are against same-sex civil unions, as well. There really isn't any legal difference between marriage and civil unions, but it just makes these social conservatives feel so icky.

Treason! You must never denounce the Lord Our God! I mean, after all, he did give President George Walker Bush a mandate to be in office. How could God ever be wrong? Damn godless commies...with your secularism...

*puts bumper sticker on truck that reads "Proud to be a Godless Commie"* ;-)

...I mean, really. "Traditional Values"? Well, if "Traditional Values" only apply to Western Montheism as valid, then sure, no gay marriage. But as it stands, one cannot claim that it's not violating the seperation of church and state. Which is why I support the banning of ALL marriage! Marriage is overrated, anyways! ;) So, I have to say that if a nation believes in seperation of church and state, then there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.
Ok I understand your objection to traditional values aguments being used to justify stances against gay marraiges, since they only succeed by begging the question or materially implying a conclusion that contradicts the seperation of the state from religions and churches.
And I agree with your final conclusion " So, I have to say that if a nation believes in seperation of church and state, then there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.".
I disagree with banning marraige just because you think it's overated. I think lots of things are overated, but I have no intention whatsoever of banning them. There are things I actively dislike and still would never dream of banning. What I mean is, if you think marraige is overated, dont participate.

Your comment about banning marraige also included which (linking it to the proceeding comments about arguments that rely on a definition of tradition as being restricted to 'Western monoethism'), however I have to say I dont see how those linked comments substantiate the propostion that marraige should be banned.

I disagree with banning marraige just because you think it's overated. I think lots of things are overated, but I have no intention whatsoever of banning them. There are things I actively dislike and still would never dream of banning. What I mean is, if you think marraige is overated, dont participate.

Your comment about banning marraige also included which (linking it to the proceeding comments about arguments that rely on a definition of tradition as being restricted to 'Western monoethism'), however I have to say I dont see how those linked comments substantiate the propostion that marraige should be banned.
I'm not sure of this, but I'd wager The Royal Art was joking...

I'm not sure of this, but I'd wager The Royal Art was joking...
You may be right...
...is this poster also joking do you think?
The only argument I have seen that could be posed is that in a government with emphasis on separation of church and state, the word "marriage" is traditionally a Christian word which is defined as union between a man and woman.
I dont know, I just cant tell sometimes..... ;) :p :D

Actually it was defined as a union between a WHite man or women or a Black man or women or a Yellow man or women. Until the supreme court said inter racial marraiges are legal.

It looks like Chrsitanity and the majority of Chrsitians just hate the fact that Homosexuals are human too.

I don't see how anyone can be friends with a gay person, and then speak out against gay marriage.

Diversity is the answer to bigotry.

Homosexual marriages and 'civil unions' are inherently evil. But it's their choice to get on God's bad side.
With that attitude I'd reckon you're on God's bad side.

The only argument I have seen that could be posed is that in a government with emphasis on separation of church and state, the word "marriage" is traditionally a Christian word which is defined as union between a man and woman. So not only is the word marriage incorrect, but it also could possibly piss off some zealots. Might as well just not step on any toes and call it gay fshnorgle or w/e you want :O

The word marriage is only traditionally a Christian term to, well, Christians. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Budhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Ba'hai, Wiccans, and Atheists all get married (or some version there of).

But these same people are against same-sex civil unions, as well. There really isn't any legal difference between marriage and civil unions, but it just makes these social conservatives feel so icky.

There is a huge legal difference between marriage and civil unions as they stand currently. Civil unions only grant a handful of rights (and NONE of the federal ones) while marriage grants hundreds.

I don't see how anyone can be friends with a gay person, and then speak out against gay marriage.

Diversity is the answer to bigotry.


Exactly. My entire family, knowing that I am bi, went to the polls, and voted to make sure that I could never marry another man (in Michigan, the amendment passed). It's a betrayal. A big slap in the face from my own blood.

There is no reason why gays shouldn't be able to marry.

Huzzah!

*bows* I have the same opinions.... last I checked, there was a separation of church & state. Even if, let's say for example... the Catholic church refuses to acknowledge the civil union between homosexuals, the state government, and the federal government HAS to acknowledge it.

Case in point (although the case is not a homosexual couple): When my parents married, my father was Catholic, but my mother did not belong to any religious creed; much less Catholicism. For this reason, they were not married by the Catholic church. According to them, my parents were never married, and I am a bastard. And also, since the Catholic church does not believe in divorce, even if my parents' marriage had been recognized as such, the divorce they eventually went through would not be. But the government had to recognize both the marriage and the divorce.

Wow, that was a lot to type.