I don't understand the stigma of "marriage"

[tightsnheels]

Given the current state of our country, and the direction that the Obama administration is pointed, where do you thing we're going. If we aren't already there, we're damn close to it. Damage that will never be undone.

I agree about the damage and I am afraid that our politicians have not studied there history on many, many matters, such as the full reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire: army stretched too thin, no money to pay the government employee wages, civil unrest, illegal immigration many of the things that are happening now, everything combined just made it that much easier for the "Barbarians" to waltz right in. I only hope someone opens their eyes before things get much worse.

T&H

[vector]

I'm sure that the same sex couples, who are already living together for life, start marrying, the great spaghetti monster will show up and obliterate the Earth!

[TooTall]

While I don't engage in the gay lifestyle myself, I wouldn't deny other people the right to do so. And there is certainly good reason to extend the civil benefits of marriage to committed gay couples - there are real benefits for taxes, shared property, and especially health care. Perhaps it's the traditionalist in me, but I do wish they'd call it something else. A lot of people have changed some basic beliefs to accept the gay lifestyle as a valid one. Surely they can extend to us a modicum of courtesy in this matter, in respect for our feelings.

[yozz]

Perhaps it's the traditionalist in me, but I do wish they'd call it something else.

Actually this semantic problem does have a solution already:

civil marriage: marriage.

church marriage: holy matrimony.

As we will all agree, there is nothing holy about a civil marriage. To some extent, it

is just a contract.

The two are clearly and completely different. The Catholic church for instance doesn't

recognize divorce and hence, someone who is divorced cannot remarry with them.

Whether the church marriage is open for everybody depends on the local church

communities. Here in Holland there are protestant communities that allow it. But this

is up to the local communities.

Y.

[Guy N. Heels]

Actually this semantic problem does have a solution already:

civil marriage: marriage.

church marriage: holy matrimony.

As we will all agree, there is nothing holy about a civil marriage. To some extent, it

is just a contract.

The two are clearly and completely different. The Catholic church for instance doesn't recognize divorce and hence, someone who is divorced cannot remarry with them...

Au contraire. To the best of my knowledge, all Christian churches recognize 1] Adultery and 2] Fraud (misrepresentation) as legitimate grounds for divorce. Many churches also recognize abandonment or desertion as another legitimate basis for divorce (but proving who is the responsible party in a church court may prove to be a very sticky business). If a person is divorced on legitimate grounds that the church recognizes, then the injured party has the right to re-marry.

Therefore, following this same line of reasoning, I can find no legitimate grounds for anything that we would call a "same-sex marriage".

[yozz]

Au contraire. To the best of my knowledge, all Christian churches recognize 1] Adultery and 2] Fraud (misrepresentation) as legitimate grounds for divorce. Many churches also recognize abandonment or desertion as another legitimate basis for divorce (but proving who is the responsible party in a church court may prove to be a very sticky business). If a person is divorced on legitimate grounds that the church recognizes, then the injured party has the right to re-marry.

Therefore, following this same line of reasoning, I can find no legitimate grounds for anything that we would call a "same-sex marriage".

No no. The Catholic church doesn't recognozie divorce.

Its position is that if there is misrepresentation when the ceremony took place, the

marriage isn't valid. Hence there never was a marriage. This is completely different.

Example: if for instance one of the parties knows in advance that he/she cannot

get children and withholds this information from the other party, the marriage isn't

valid.

Then in the middle ages they made a few rather weird constructions (non-consumption)

to get out of a marriage (for much money), again by declaring the original marriage

invalid. I don't think these are still used.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean with your last sentence. The church does

in the church things according to what the church preaches. In our current society

that is in no way connected to what ever legal contract the state allows between

individuals. The state is not to take the role of the church and the church is not

to take the role of the state. If it would, you might be forced to become catholic,

presbiterian muslim budist or hindoe when the majority in the country would

decide so. Not an idea I like.

Y.

[Guest]

yes, thats what makes ALL the difference between the MUSLIM countries & one like OURS, like IRAN for instance, which is run mostly from SECULAR authority (religeous) like all of the west once was.

[kikepa]

I'm sure that the same sex couples, who are already living together for life, start marrying, the great spaghetti monster will show up and obliterate the Earth!

Well, if he's of the bolognese variety, I and a few of my friends might gobble him up before he does much damage!

How many same-sex roommates are there out there? Well, excluding college students, which I suspect might count for about half...

I really don't think their sexual preference has anything to do with things. Getting back to ShockQueen's OP, however... First, it pulled in both religion and politics, which are not allowed on many forums, especially in deadly combination with one another. Second, I agree that laws and religion in the US are heavily intertwined - simple history clearly shows the origen of our system of laws. Third, he makes a good point - why not make marriage a religious preference, and allow others to obtain a "civil union?"

Now, here's the sticky part - do those opting for a "civil union" want all the rights and privalages afforded by marriage? Or are they willing to put up with all the responsibilities, as well, like those prohibiting domestic violence, adultery, polygamy, non-support of family members, as well as the ones dealing with divorce, such as alimony, child support, and dissolution of assets under current marital laws?

I think you'll find most legislators, including the those who're very liberal, allowing civil unions to take place without conferring on them both the rights and the responsibilities afforded/required of traditional marriage.

The justification is simple - such unions are considered to be beneficial to society, but only when they're true commitments for life. To that end, the laws exist which hold married couples accountable for providing for one another and contributing to a healthy family while avoiding unhealthy behaviors.

Towards this end, I would propose the entire set of laws current titled "marriage" be conferred to that of "civil union," with the only change being that same sex unions be allowed, with "marriage" becoming a subset under "civil union," with only three words remaining under that heading: "of opposite sex."

Alternatively, as ShockQueen suggests, the marriage clause could be relegated to the religious category, but I think you'll find quite a few atheists desiring a marriage who would find that approach rather objectionable.

There is a simpler solution: Just allow same-sex marriages and if those obtaining such a union don't like the term "marriage," they can just get over it, while those who oppose same-sex marriages can just get over that, too.

Alternatively, if there is evidence that same-sex marriages are not healthy for society, and shouldn't be allowed, then now is the time for that information to come to light, too.

Bottom line: It is not likely we will stop progress. It is very important, however, that progress continue in an objective, rational direction, based on facts and scientific evidence. If those with hidden agendas would prefer otherwise, well, then they can just get over it!

[Bubba136]

Bottom line: It is not likely we will stop progress. It is very important, however, that progress continue in an objective, rational direction, based on facts and scientific evidence. If those with hidden agendas would prefer otherwise, well, then they can just get over it!

You have presented a very good argument and I agree with almost everything as presented. However, progress in this area can only be made if our society continues it's current march toward secularism. While the mainstream print and electronic media are loath to report any articles that are critical of societies "forward (enlightened) progress, there is, behind the scenes, a huge backlash building that will eventually stall the secularist movement in its tracks. Or else there will be another revolution and society will come totally "unglued."

As it is, there are only two states in the USA (MA & Conn) that recognize same sex marriages. Most of the rest of the states have provisions in their constitutions prohibiting such marriages and do not recognize same sex marriages performed in jurisdictions that do allow them.

While socialism might be the boon for countries like Sweden, it is not in the cards for the United States of America. Because, all of the "changes" that President Obama is trying to push through, will be undone in a couple of years. And, amongst the things that will be undone is same sex marriage.

While this is just my opinion, I base it upon the increasing dissatisfaction that is beginning to build within the general population. Time will tell if I am right, won't it?

[Guy N. Heels]

Au contraire. To the best of my knowledge, all Christian churches recognize 1] Adultery and 2] Fraud (misrepresentation) as legitimate grounds for divorce. Many churches also recognize abandonment or desertion as another legitimate basis for divorce (but proving who is the responsible party in a church court may prove to be a very sticky business). If a person is divorced on legitimate grounds that the church recognizes, then the injured party has the right to re-marry.

Therefore, following this same line of reasoning, I can find no legitimate grounds for anything that we would call a "same-sex marriage".

No no. The Catholic church doesn't recognozie divorce.

Its position is that if there is misrepresentation when the ceremony took place, the

marriage isn't valid. Hence there never was a marriage. This is completely different.

Example: if for instance one of the parties knows in advance that he/she cannot

get children and withholds this information from the other party, the marriage isn't

valid.

Then in the middle ages they made a few rather weird constructions (non-consumption)

to get out of a marriage (for much money), again by declaring the original marriage

invalid. I don't think these are still used.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean with your last sentence. The church does

in the church things according to what the church preaches. In our current society

that is in no way connected to what ever legal contract the state allows between

individuals. The state is not to take the role of the church and the church is not

to take the role of the state. If it would, you might be forced to become catholic,

presbiterian muslim budist or hindoe when the majority in the country would

decide so. Not an idea I like.

Y.

In our post-modern societies the concept of a Church Court may seem like an anacranisim. However, both the idea and the term are perfectly valid, as there was a recent reference to some matter that came up about a bishop or an elder in some church somewhere (I forget the particular denomination) and the newspaper reported that the concerned party would have to face trial in a Church Court (civil laws do not apply in this case). Moreover, I happen to own a copy of the Book of Discipline for the United Methodist Church where we also find the term Church Court. The term, as I advanced it, is valid!

While I have not consulted the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and neither have I spoken to my brother, who married Catholic; I have now contacted an on-line informational site that explains the view of the Catholic Church on divorce in greater detail. At Ask.com the Catholic Church apparently takes the view that there is no biblical basis for a properly consummated marriage and, therefore, they hew to the Church teachings going back to 1651 that defines the basis for marriage. Unfortunately, while Christ did give the specific illustration of adultery (the Church seems to prefer the term infidelity), they do not address this specific issue at all; which leaves the matter somewhat open-ended in my mind. However, the teaching is clear that a person who has obtained a divorce in whatever venue will NOT be permitted to participate in the sacraments of the Chuch.

Therefore, I must now modify my previous response to read: that for all those non-Catholic church-goers seeking a divorce through their church, I have no idea if the charge of adultery would have to be tried in a Church Court before a divorce would be granted by whichever church official that would be appropriate. Once again, the matter of the burden of proof still might require some doing.

What I was trying to state in my last sentence is: Under all of the known biblical laws, precepts, and judgements that men have lived by for thousands of years, and which do allow for matters like divorce; I can find no idea, notion, precept, law, judgement or instruction in the Bible that would in any way apply to a "same sex union". Therefore, unless one wants to turn to the pages of the Bible wherein the word "ABOMINATION" is attributed directly to the words of God, the only thing else that I can see is some sort of arrangement that exists outside of the compass of the Bible and every religion that I have studied. I was merely trying to give you the "shorthand" version of the last paragraph, although I have no objection to clarifying a point.

[Trolldeg]

Therefore, unless one wants to turn to the pages of the Bible wherein the word "ABOMINATION" is attributed directly to the words of God, the only thing else that I can see is some sort of arrangement that exists outside of the compass of the Bible and every religion that I have studied.

....

[JandraElune]

All points taken one point remains unsaid but tieing the two together. Now being fair how to answer this. Those that have transitioned gender then marry. Are they not a Man and a Woman? In some courts which are lead by biggots and ignore what a physical appernace says, ignore what the birth certificate says but instead remain fixed on what was before the transition. Making a the now physical man and woman but either a man-man or woman-woman. Being fair is to let them marry and not dig up the past, go with the here and now. In terms of addressing each other it is STILL husbend and wife, man and woman. And some times there is this. Both involved transitioned genders before man and womand and after womand and man. How ever out of spit it is STILL denied by those same courts.

[tightsnheels]

I do believe at this point we have opened the proverbial can of worms. If we enlightened members of this forum can not agree on this subject how do we expect society to agree?

Let us take a few arguments in brief:

Biblical: Our homosexual teachings are based on the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah but Biblical historians and theologians believe that the cities were destroyed not for gay sex but for the breaking of hospitality laws! This is a far cry from banning homosexuality. Now we are left with one passage about men lying with men as a man would lye with a woman. This passage is hard to argue if your only rooted in the old testament. In Deuteronomy it is forbidden to cross dress, now let's consider this everyone wore the same thing! There is so little difference between men's clothes and women's clothes that it is nigh on impossible to the untrained eye to determine the differences. It wasn't until the middle ages that clothes started to differentiate between the sexes. So why is cross dressing condemned? My belief is the act of coercing one into believing you are the opposite is the problem or we have another translation problem. In my studies I have found that even Biblical scholars have trouble with translation issues and the meaning of passages. The passages start to resemble algebra after a point, if quasi means half formed then the passage means this, if quasi means goat intestines it means that. Many passages in the Bible particularly in the OLD testament for Christians or the Tanach for our Jewish brethren have issues because no one knows what some of the words mean anymore. Take haus for example literally it means an indefinite span of time but we interpret it to be days. So in actuality everything was created in seven indefinite lengths of time. So are we still on day seven or eight? By my teaching Jesus closed the old testament and basically all the old laws and rules were cast out leaving behind the ten commandments and love thy neighbor as you would love thyself. To me the Bible is not a valid source for these arguments.

Moral grounds: A stickier subject at least as these are personally held beliefs of the objector but typically they are based in Biblical teaching (Please see above). A persons beliefs are not easily changed unless something comes close to home to shake them such as a son/daughter, brother/sister coming out and forcing them to confront their own preconceived notions. How many of us here have been labeled as gay because we were heels?

Civil problems in the courts: No more than we already see with hetero couples so I see no reason to exclude the many fine lawyers and barristers of a new source of income. No matter what you call it, all legally binding attributes should be the same regardless of the gender of the participants that way all is fair.

Church courts: I doubt very many if any churches will ever recognize a homosexual marriage. Funny how we are all supposed to love one another equally except those who are different.

On the subject of the trans-gendered: What ever the person portrays as their norm is what they are and the courts need to catch on to that.

Society is full of contradictions and it is fearful of those things that are different from its norms. We have all experienced some form of bigotry in our lives to some extent or another (Lord knows I have) it will take some very open minded people to embrace that bigotry so they can see the errors of their ways and come to be more tolerant and accepting. In the meantime I pray for peace, love, and acceptance between peoples everyday.

Now I shall return to browsing our wonderful sight that our fuzzy blue host so graciously allows us to use.
T&H

[Guy N. Heels]

All points taken one point remains unsaid but tieing the two together. Now being fair how to answer this.

Those that have transitioned gender then marry. Are they not a Man and a Woman?

In some courts which are lead by biggots and ignore what a physical appernace says, ignore what the birth certificate says but instead remain fixed on what was before the transition. Making a the now physical man and woman but either a man-man or woman-woman.

Being fair is to let them marry and not dig up the past, go with the here and now.

In terms of addressing each other it is STILL husbend and wife, man and woman.

And some times there is this. Both involved transitioned genders before man and womand and after womand and man. How ever out of spit it is STILL denied by those same courts.

First off, I would like to remind everyone that this is a forum in which we discuss High Heels and associated fashion issues, which is NOT to be confused as a bible/religious forum (Although some religious issues do have a bearing on matters here). Therefore, and especially in light of the old adage that, "He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I shall endeavor to refrain from further biblical references on this particular topic.

Then the second point that I very strongly feel needs to be voiced is the misconception that a law against something equals hate!

Now let's take a minute to examine this. When that nice friendly policeman with the bright blue flashing light stops you and gives you a ticket for violating the law, does that mean that he and the court system and the legislative process that he represents all HATE you? The obvious answer is no. If you violate the laws of any state or country, you are subject to the penalties thereof and emotions really should have no part in the matter whatsoever. In like manner, just because a lawyer, priest, prophet, professor, or some other knowledgeable individual takes the trouble to point out what the Bible states, or what some other authoritative book might say about a given subject and mentions what laws are violated, that does not in any way equate with hatred (except, perhaps, in the minds of those who are already in a state of rebellion against the law). This hatred argument is purely a cop-out employed by those who have already placed themselves in a state of rebellion against what the Bible says and they are playing the emotional card because they know very well that before the righteous laws of a just God that they are defenseless. So if anyone here wants to trot out that patently false accusation of hatred, then I challenge you to do the same the very next time that the bright young policeman stops you and tells you that you have violated some law that he is required to uphold and enforce, and see just where that gets you.

Finally, the issue of sexual reassignment is a whole world apart from the usual discussion of same-sex marriage for several reasons; not the least of which is the fact each individual is born with either a his or a hers brain! Therefore, while it may be entirely possible to reassign one's gender and sexual functions, that still does not reassign one's brain functions. So on that basis alone, I'm going to say, "God will judge" and bow-out. The plain and simple fact is that there are some circumstances that none of us are qualified to judge.

[Bubba136]

Guy N. Heels: "The plain and simple fact is that there are some circumstances that none of us are qualified to judge." An intelligent conclusion based on common sense.

[dww]

At the end of the day, who cares, one life live it.

[Eggnog]

At the end of the day, who cares, one life live it.

I agree completely. Why argue, why descriminate, why give a flying leap if it doesn't harm us,personally. If someone feels different than ourselves, providing it doesn't harm others, let them express those feelings as we would ours. Nobody should care if a guy is in a skirt and heels. No body should care if a girl is snogging another girl. No big deal.

[mrnh]

but it is very confusing to me because I like woman and I become very much confused when man is wearing womans clothes. Also in Romania we say its not good from religion also. Please I am not aggressive about other but please I do become confused by a man's appearance as a woman. does anyone else also becomes confused?