NationStates Jolt Archive

In some of the gay marriage threads I have seen the social conservatives deny gays the right to marry, because, they assert, the right to marry is not really a right. So I wondered if they would protest if their governent decided to ban all marriage?

So anyway, do you consider the right marry to be a real right?

I think so. I think that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

In some of the gay marriage threads I have seen the social conservatives deny gays the right to marry, because, they assert, the right to marry is not really a right. So I wondered if they would protest if their governent decided to ban all marriage?

So anyway, do you consider the right marry to be a real right?

I think so. I think that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

I believe it's a religious right. And if that religion doesn't feel the need to allow certain people to marry, then so be it.

marriage, per se, isn't a right, and the government should have nothing to do with it. That is a churchy thing.

Civil unions on the other hand are a governmental thing, and I have no problem with gays getting civil unions. Just so long as straight people can get 'em too. And limit it so a person can only be cv'ed to one other person.

marriage, per se, isn't a right, and the government should have nothing to do with it. That is a churchy thing.

Civil unions on the other hand are a governmental thing, and I have no problem with gays getting civil unions.

Agreed.

Sacred Marriage is a right granted by God.

marriage, per se, isn't a right, and the government should have nothing to do with it. That is a churchy thing.

Civil unions on the other hand are a governmental thing, and I have no problem with gays getting civil unions. Just so long as straight people can get 'em too. And limit it so a person can only be cv'ed to one other person.
I believe it's a religious right. And if that religion doesn't feel the need to allow certain people to marry, then so be it.
I agree. But if there is a church that will wed gay couples, does the government have any business banning them from doing so?

Civil marriage is not a right, nor are civil unions. Personally, I don't believe there should be such a thing as civil marriage-- it just seems nonsensical and only has meaning in relatively recent times. Civil unions are okay, and I don't believe they should be denied on persuasion. Indeed, I don't think they should necessarily be a sexual thing. Two sisters living together should, for instance, be able to set up a civil union to manage the estate and whatnot.

Obviously, though, people have the inherent right to be religiously married.

I believe it's a religious right. And if that religion doesn't feel the need to allow certain people to marry, then so be it.
Marriage is not necessarily a religious right, however, it is both a secular and sacred rite. :) . (sorry, I couldn't resist) Marriage is mainly for legal purposes now. Is is a change in status. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? I really don't know. I don't have anything against them, so I think, probably, yes they should be. (I don't consider marriage to be a right, it's simply a government classification - in the religious sense, marriage is of more true significance and followers of a church do have a right to be married by that church)

Civil marriage is not a right, nor are civil unions. Personally, I don't believe there should be such a thing as civil marriage-- it just seems nonsensical and only has meaning in relatively recent times. Civil unions are okay, and I don't believe they should be denied on persuasion. Indeed, I don't think they should necessarily be a sexual thing. Two sisters living together should, for instance, be able to set up a civil union to manage the estate and whatnot.

Obviously, though, people have the inherent right to be religiously married.

I agree with that.

Marriage is absolutely not a right. Check the constitution, you are afforded no such right. The only legitimate rights are negative rights which are rights that every person already possesses with such as life, liberty and property (protecting the property one has not the right to have property you did not earn). This is the philosophy laid out by John Locke. Other "rights", such as education, health-care, employment or marriage forces someone else to provide such a right, thus they are positive, and illegitimate, rights.

However, back to the marriage issue, the government only has domain over secular marriage, which I personally think shouldn't exist. The government has no right to interfere into the realm of religious marriage and therefore every religion can decide who cannot be married within its faith.

I think the government should force people to kill their fathers and marry their mothers.

Marriage is absolutely not a right. Check the constitution, you are afforded no such right. The only legitimate rights are negative rights which are rights that every person already possesses with such as life, liberty and property (protecting the property one has not the right to have property you did not earn). This is the philosophy laid out by John Locke. Other "rights", such as education, health-care, employment or marriage forces someone else to provide such a right, thus they are positive, and illegitimate, rights.

However, back to the marriage issue, the government only has domain over secular marriage, which I personally think shouldn't exist. The government has no right to interfere into the realm of religious marriage and therefore every religion can decide who cannot be married within its faith.


If you read the Constitution, you'll see that "property" was changed to "pursuit of happiness", which may very well include marriage

Marriage is absolutely not a right. Check the constitution, you are afforded no such right.
I think it would come under the Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If you read the Constitution, you'll see that "property" was changed to "pursuit of happiness", which may very well include marriage

Just because the Constituation says something, that doesn't make it right, only so. What do you actually think about it?

In some of the gay marriage threads I have seen the social conservatives deny gays the right to marry, because, they assert, the right to marry is not really a right. So I wondered if they would protest if their governent decided to ban all marriage?

So anyway, do you consider the right marry to be a real right?

I think so. I think that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry.
It's not addressed in the US Constitution and is therefore one of those unenumerated "rights" reserved to the States or to the People respectively.

Marriage is a matter for the States and for individuals. If either want to approve gay marraige, I see that as their business.

Just because the Constituation says something, that doesn't make it right, only so. What do you actually think about it?


I was merely correcting someone's information. The person was directly quoting John Locke rather than the US Constitution.

I was merely correcting someone's information. The person was directly quoting John Locke rather than the US Constitution.

I realise that, I was just getting frustrated that everyone was quoting a constitution that doesn't apply to me.

I realise that, I was just getting frustrated that everyone was quoting a constitution that doesn't apply to me.


Personally, I believe that it is a right, but only between two consenting individuals. (This means no arranged marriages, no marrying your dog/a corpse/a tree, etc.)

Personally, I believe that it is a right, but only between two consenting individuals. (This means no arranged marriages, no marrying your dog/a corpse/a tree, etc.)

In the sense that people should be allowed to continue as they have traditionally, yes, I agree people should have tha right to uphold culture and tradition.

Marriage is something that is in this day and age for many is secular. It's more of a tradition than a religious ceremony, and it's not a right protected by the constitution by any means. Otherwise I could use "pursuit of happiness" to justify stealing, etc. So for those that want to have secular marriage or if there is a church that agrees to marry them then I think that should be allowed. The idea that people who aren't gay can tell people who are that they're not allowed to get married is ridiculous.

Sacred Marriage is a right granted by God.

Is there a special God of Marriage?

Or is there a particular God you have in mind?

What makes a "Sacred" marriage so?

Your prejudices appear to be showing.

Marriage is something that is in this day and age for many is secular. It's more of a tradition than a religious ceremony, and it's not a right protected by the constitution by any means. Otherwise I could use "pursuit of happiness" to justify stealing, etc. So for those that want to have secular marriage or if there is a church that agrees to marry them then I think that should be allowed. The idea that people who aren't gay can tell people who are that they're not allowed to get married is ridiculous.

Stealing is inherently illegal,though. Marriage isn't.(well not yet) You know, just a thought.

Is there a special God of Marriage?

Or is there a particular God you have in mind?

What makes a "Sacred" marriage so?

Your prejudices appear to be showing.

The fact that 'God' was spelt with a capital suggests the one God of the faiths of Abraham, not a god.

A sacred mariage is one endorsed by one's religion as opposed to a non-religious, state recognised, marriage. (Yes, sacred marriages are also recognised).

The fact that 'God' was spelt with a capital suggests the one God of the faiths of Abraham, not a god.

A sacred mariage is one endorsed by one's religion as opposed to a non-religious, state recognised, marriage. (Yes, sacred marriages are also recognised).

The fact that you automatically assume that the word "God" spelt with a capital refers to anything specific, and requires no further clarification, again only displays your own prejudices.

Monotheism is not restricted to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition by any means.

The fact that you automatically assume that the word "God" spelt with a capital refers to anything specific, and requires no further clarification, again only displays your own prejudices.

Monotheism is not restricted to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition by any means.

You're right. There are even monotheistic pagans, although they seem quite rare. (They worship all the Gods and Goddesses, but believe they are all different faces of the same Deity.)

Is there a special God of Marriage?

Or is there a particular God you have in mind?

What makes a "Sacred" marriage so?

Your prejudices appear to be showing.
Your prejudices and ignorance are showing. Several different faiths have concepts of sacred marriage, and that it is an intrinsic human right. For a user to state his religious beliefs, although oddly in more of a civic discussion thread, is not wrong or bigoted. To question his doing so, particularly to mock his beliefs, is.

The problem in the gay marriage debate is this:

In granting special rights and priviliges to two individuals that consent to marry one another if they are of a certain gender but not to individuals of certain other genders, the government violates the equal protections rights embodied in the constitution.

Semantics aside, the government is (in my opinion) constitutionally compelled to grant the same rights and privigles two pairs of individuals who seek legal marriage ( or 'civil union' if the terms is applied evenhandedly) with no more discrimination based upon gender than it is allowed to base upon race or religion.

The fact that you automatically assume that the word "God" spelt with a capital refers to anything specific, and requires no further clarification, again only displays your own prejudices.

Monotheism is not restricted to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition by any means.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply pointing out your ignorance of the english language, aka. God = the one and only God, and god = a god of which there are more than one. The three faiths was an example, not exclusive.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply pointing out your ignorance of the english language, aka. God = the one and only God, and god = a god of which there are more than one. The three faiths was an example, not exclusive.


Technically, capitalization can differ from region to region, as well as the use of different words..sooo....here's another argument for how odd the English language is.

You're right. There are even monotheistic pagans, although they seem quite rare. (They worship all the Gods and Goddesses, but believe they are all different faces of the same Deity.)

Same goes for you. It's "gods and goddesses." There is no such word as "Gods" meaning the plural of God. Sorry to be so picky, but clarification is important when discussing such delicate matters.

Technically, capitalization can differ from region to region, as well as the use of different words..sooo....here's another argument for how odd the English language is.

How? The word "god" is not a name, therefore shouldn't be capitalised.

Same goes for you. It's "gods and goddesses." There is no such word as "Gods" meaning the plural of God. Sorry to be so picky, but clarification is important when discussing such delicate matters.

oi...I'm getting a little sick of you.

How? The word "god" is not a name, therefore shouldn't be capitalised.


Aside from that, you've pretty much hijacked this thread into a mundane discussion about our bizarre choice of languages.

No marriage isn't a right...its a fiction

Actually, in Europe, marraige used to never be a religious thing until very recently. Historically it was totally secular and officiated by some kind of official.

I'm all for gay rights and non-discrimination based on preference, gender, religion or race, but I still believe that marraige is a priveledge, not a right. STD testing and a general mental fitness test should be mandatory, especially if one plans on having or adopting children. Those with excessively undesirable traits should not be allowed to breed. Since humans have destroyed natural selection, it's high time we do something to simulate it.

Actually, in Europe, marraige used to never be a religious thing until very recently. Historically it was totally secular and officiated by some kind of official.

I'm all for gay rights and non-discrimination based on preference, gender, religion or race, but I still believe that marraige is a priveledge, not a right. STD testing and a general mental fitness test should be mandatory, especially if one plans on having or adopting children. Those with excessively undesirable traits should not be allowed to breed. Since humans have destroyed natural selection, it's high time we do something to simulate it.

Mental fitness tests should probably continue (for the parents) every few years, as some parents' disorders manifest themselves not before, but years after the child is born. (Speaking from experience here -- Mama was a lunatic...wait SHE STILL IS!)

Aside from that, you've pretty much hijacked this thread into a mundane discussion about our bizarre choice of languages.

Oh... sorry :( .

Mental fitness tests should probably continue (for the parents) every few years, as some parents' disorders manifest themselves not before, but years after the child is born. (Speaking from experience here -- Mama was a lunatic...wait SHE STILL IS!)
The easiest way to do that would be to institute a 'Big Brother' surveillance system, but the issues that would come up with that are huge and annoying. It would only work if the public had nothing to compare their situation with (liberatarian countries) , and no reason to revolt.

Your prejudices and ignorance are showing. Several different faiths have concepts of sacred marriage, and that it is an intrinsic human right. For a user to state his religious beliefs, although oddly in more of a civic discussion thread, is not wrong or bigoted. To question his doing so, particularly to mock his beliefs, is.

My intention was never to mock anyone's belief.

But I do believe that it is important to question assumptions, such as that arising from the use of the word "God" without being specific.

The writer did not state, with any clarity, his (or her) religious beliefs, apparantly assuming that to do so would be unnecessary.

You are correct in your statement that "Several different faiths have concepts of sacred marriage".

Several different faiths also have differing concepts of "God".

Actually, in Europe, marraige used to never be a religious thing until very recently. Historically it was totally secular and officiated by some kind of official.
That's BS, unless your definition of 'recently' is over 1400 years.

I'm all for gay rights and non-discrimination based on preference, gender, religion or race, but I still believe that marraige is a priveledge, not a right. STD testing and a general mental fitness test should be mandatory, especially if one plans on having or adopting children. Those with excessively undesirable traits should not be allowed to breed. Since humans have destroyed natural selection, it's high time we do something to simulate it.
And that's sick. You must be a fan of Margaret Sanger and her ilk in the eugenics movement. People have an inherent right to procreate.


The writer did not state, with any clarity, his (or her) religious beliefs, apparantly assuming that to do so would be unnecessary.
My apologies. I felt it was obvious that the author referred to the Judeo-Christian God, as H/he is generally in the U.S. and English-speaking countries the only god to be referred to as 'God'. Moreover, with my background, I knew that he was specifically talking about the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Gomen.

I felt it was obvious that the author referred to the Judeo-Christian God, as H/he is generally in the U.S. and English-speaking countries the only god to be referred to as 'God'. Moreover, with my background, I knew that he was specifically talking about the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Gomen.

Speaking, reading or writing English does not define one as Judeo-Christian.

English is the first, or most used language of many Hindus, for example.

Using the internet does not define one as cyborg.

You should not assume that your assumptions are shared.

Marraige should not be recognized by the state, as it allows for too much interference into people's lives. If they wish to have a private ceremony, that is entirely their business.

Speaking, reading or writing English does not define one as Judeo-Christian.
Pardon my language-- no shit, Sherlock. I never said the equivalent. I said that it was custom in the English language to refer to the Judeo-Muslim-Christian god as 'God'.
English is the first, or most used language of many Hindus, for example.
Modern English, however, is the product of a Christian culture, therefore I shouldn't be too far out of my bounds expecting people to understand basic English practices. However,

You should not assume that your assumptions are shared.
that is why I apologized-- mostly because I jumped to a conclusion. End of story, I believe. :)

Is there a special God of Marriage?

Or is there a particular God you have in mind?

What makes a "Sacred" marriage so?

Your prejudices appear to be showing.
There is one God and English as a language of Christendom reflects this!

Marriage is a God-created thing. He designed it, and the way in which He designed it as a union between a man and a WOMAN. Not man. In the Bible, Leviticus 18:20 says (KJV) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination". OTher versions say the same ting (NIV) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable". So I think that pretty well settles it. Homosexuality is not good in God's eyes. Go created marriage, so homosexual marriage is not right in God's eyes as well.

Anyway, if somehow they get thr right to be joined, they shouldn't call it "marriage". Marriage, by definition is a man/woman thing, not a homosexual thing.

There is one God and English as a language of Christendom reflects this!

The "there is one God" is an unshared and undefined assumption on your part.

There is no direct corelationship between language and religious belief.

The concept of "Christendom" vanished in medieval times, once the practioners of so-called Christianity commenced slaughtering and persecuting each other in the wars of religion.

The Angles, Saxons, Celts, Britons, Jutes, Romans, Danes, Vikings etc who contributed to modern English were largely pagan.

And, if you bothered to read earlier posts, you would have discovered that not only has this particular sidetrack been "done to death", but that the first, original post in this thread quite specifically referred to civil, as opposed to religious, marriages.