janie48 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 http://southwestminneapolis.patch.com/articles/replay-dayton-calls-for-same-sex-marriage Last night Gov. Mark Dayton, a Presbyterian, made a plea for the lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota. "Let me mention one other cause, which is controversial, but consistent with my faith and my principles. And, more importantly, consistent with this country’s founding principles and its Constitution. I believe that every Minnesotan should have the freedom to marry legally the person she or he loves, whether of the same or other sex. Last year, Minnesotans began a conversation about why marriage matters, and we found our common belief that it is about love, commitment, and responsibility. I want Minnesota to be a state, which affirms that freedom for one means freedom for everyone, and where no one is told it is illegal to marry the person you love". He has expessed his view compassionately,but not all Presbyterians will agree with him. It will be the same in other religions, Jew, Catholic,Muslim etc they may share the same faith but they don't all wear the same uniform. I point that out,because its surprising how many people think all members of the same religion think the same way,or agree with everything their leaders say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 He has expessed his view compassionately,but not all Presbyterians will agree with him. It will be the same in other religions, Jew, Catholic,Muslim etc they may share the same faith but they don't all wear the same uniform. I point that out,because its surprising how many people think all members of the same religion think the same way,or agree with everything their leaders say. Exactly, which is what flamingjimmy was saying and why I posted his comments in support. So basically people have different views to marriage, irrespective of religious views. So for the state to collude with a handful of religious people who wield a lot of power, to dictate what the rest of us can do, religious or not, straight or gay, is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 A question for those who think making gay marriage available is a huge waste of time, money and resources because they already have civil partnerships (as already mentioned many times on this thread)... Do you not think it was a bigger and more pointless waste of time, money and resources for them to invent a new, different relationship status (civil partnership) complete with it's own registration system and rules in the FIRST place, instead of just making the existing marriage system more inclusive? AFTER spending lots of time, money and resources debating and arguing about it before hand? Makes you wonder why CP was created in the first place..to fill a niche for gays and at the same time quelling unrest..re discrimination within that section of society. Or was it designed as a hopeful long term fix for the homophobes who see their sexuality under threat. Either way it doesn't seem to have worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 No, I understood it clearly... A civil partnership is formed once both individuals have signed the civil partnership document in the presence of a registrar and two witnesses. It can be done before or after a religious service but not at the same time. So they can have a full blown white wedding if a church will conduct such a wedding, but the actual signing of the documents can’t form part of that wedding, but can be done before or after. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 19:46 ---------- Is it surprising when guff like the following is typed? I think it was referred to as "absurd" previously, and a kind gesture at that. Explain why you think its guff, my guess is its just beyond you cognitive ability to understand which makes it appear like guff to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 A civil partnership is formed once both individuals have signed the civil partnership document in the presence of a registrar and two witnesses. It can be done before or after a religious service but not at the same time. So they can have a full blown white wedding if a church will conduct such a wedding, but the actual signing of the documents can’t form part of that wedding, but can be done before or after. Do you have a single credible and sensible reason as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Allowing person A to do something that causes no harm to anybody else cannot be discrimination to person B.I agree. Not allowing person A to do something that causes no harm to anybody else, merely because person B doesn't like it, is discrimination to person A. I agree. No religious person, or religious organisation, is being discriminated against by allowing same-sex marriage. I agree. It merely removes discrimination. It even removes religious discrimination because there are some religious organisations that do want to extend wedding ceremonies to everybody. I disagree because there is no discrimination. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 19:52 ---------- "You can sit on the bus, they use the same seats at the back as they do on the front" "You can have a civil partnership, it's the same as marriage, just a different word" Both are clear examples of crap In your opinion which you are entitled to, but calling something crap just because you don't understand it doesn’t make you appear smart. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 19:55 ---------- A question for those who think making gay marriage available is a huge waste of time, money and resources because they already have civil partnerships (as already mentioned many times on this thread)... Do you not think it was a bigger and more pointless waste of time, money and resources for them to invent a new, different relationship status (civil partnership) complete with it's own registration system and rules in the FIRST place, instead of just making the existing marriage system more inclusive? AFTER spending lots of time, money and resources debating and arguing about it before hand? No because it removed any conflict, it allowed gay people to have the same rights as everyone else with upsetting a very large percentage of society. It was a reasonable but not ideal compromise. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 19:58 ---------- Sometimes it's love, sometimes it's money, sometimes it's lust, sometimes it's convenience, sometimes it's company, sometimes it's not even chosen, sometimes it about power, sometimes it's random, sometimes it lasts a lifetime, sometimes it lasts less than a day. Even those that have the arrogance to tell us that what it can be can't decide amongst themselves what True Marriage is, and by the evidence of some research they can't even make it last as long. If two adults want to make a commitment to be with each other for the rest of their lives, then that's a marriage, whether anybody thinks it is or not. There's nothing there that I can disagree with. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 20:00 ---------- Do you have a single credible and sensible reason as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married? Nope. But many other people do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 And I suspect there are more of them so it makes sense to discriminate against the minority and not the majority. Why not discriminate against neither group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Why not discriminate against neither group? In an ideal world that would be good but we don’t live in an ideal world so discrimination is inevitable. If bob want to marry tom in his local church but the church won’t marry him because he’s gay they are discriminating against him because of his sexuality. But if we force the church to marry BOB then the church is being discriminated against for having the belief that homosexuality is a sin and not condoned by God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 A friend of mine has just married a retired vicar, both in their 60s, in a service conducted by a rather high ranking member of the Anglican Church. Do you accept that they are married?No I do not, they are legal partners, and I have no problem with that. For me just leave it at that. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. Too many people think theirs is the only valid argument. That was Hitler's problem, he was much more hard on homosexuals than we are, although Oscar Wilde and others were imprisoned for it, and should not have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Exactly, which is what flamingjimmy was saying and why I posted his comments in support. So basically people have different views to marriage, irrespective of religious views. So for the state to collude with a handful of religious people who wield a lot of power, to dictate what the rest of us can do, religious or not, straight or gay, is absurd. Providing the state of who ever are in power for a temporary period don't dictate what the church should do because whether all their church members agree with them or not their church leaders do have power over their members and it is they who dictate the rules in most religions. If the people disagree with the heads of the church they either choose to stay in the religious organisation for reasons known to themselves,state their protests when they get the opportunity (as many do) or leave which they are perfectly free to do in the major religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.