France: Gay marriage legal by 2013

[Oryx]

Unless it's Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, Hinduism, and various other religions throughout the world.

 

[Mana1]

No, but if homosexuals want to marry in a church, therefore it is in the house of god, and I doubt there's going to be a priest who is going to join two men (or women) together under the eyes of god.

Sure, it'll be simple to just stick them in a registry office and make them legally married in the eyes of the state, but there's no way it will be done under any orthodox religion.

Considering my BF's priest is perfectly willing, in one of the most conservative areas in the south, and his dad is also training to join the church and would also be willing...

I'd say you don't know much about the majority of unprejudiced Christians :3.

 

[Mephodicus]

I'd say you don't know much about the majority of unprejudiced Christians :3.

Actually, It's more of of a mix between not really caring about religion that much, and not knowing enough about it.

 

[droomph]

No, but if homosexuals want to marry in a church, therefore it is in the house of god, and I doubt there's going to be a priest who is going to join two men (or women) together under the eyes of god.

Sure, it'll be simple to just stick them in a registry office and make them legally married in the eyes of the state, but there's no way it will be done under any orthodox religion.

That's the point. We aren't forcing you to take them in, we're just giving them basic rights and recognized status. They can have their own ceremonies, and it's up to them to find an acceptable religious ceremony, if there will be one. This is giving them the basic rights of a human, not a mandate that religions have to change.

Actually, It's more of of a mix between not really caring about religion that much, and not knowing enough about it.

God said to love the sinners. Did Jesus hang out exclusively with the Pharisees and the lawyers and the billionaires? No, he hung out with the homeless, the tax collectors (basically hanging out with Hitler), the hookers, the drunks, the downcasts of society also.

These people had many sins, yet Jesus let them into the house of God, and treated them like they were righteous.

If you say you're a good Christian, why don't you know about this? Why do you claim to be a righteous Christian when you have rejected the core principle of Christianity? Not accepting people of any race, occupation, or status in the eyes of God is like massacre and holocaust to the eyes of the law.

That is a fact for Christians, not a view or an opinion. If you are a Christian, show me you are a Christian. Don't say it and not act it out.

Also, gay marriage has nothing to do with Christianity.

I hope you understand.

 

[Mephodicus]

I'm an atheist. And I apologise for coming across as someone who was a Christian.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Yeah, marriage isn't a solely Christian thing. You know how Chinese people get married? Nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever.

Unless they're Chinese Christians :p

Because being civillized means recognizing that little thing called basic human rights.

I am for gay marriage, but I don't see marriage as a basic human right. A man-made concept can't be a basic right in my eyes.

 

[Star-Lord]

I honestly thought that the French already allowed it myself. Then again Sarkozy was sort of well known for not being the best leader and putting his foot in his mouth.

Just for the record, saying that civil unions or anything to a similar nature are an equivalent of marriage is wrong. That's a version of a discriminatory "separate but equal" argument. If they are truly the same, why must they name it something different? It doesn't make sense.

 

[NarutoActor]

That's the point. We aren't forcing you to take them in, we're just giving them basic rights and recognized status. They can have their own ceremonies, and it's up to them to find an acceptable religious ceremony, if there will be one. This is giving them the basic rights of a human, not a mandate that religions have to change.



God said to love the sinners. Did Jesus hang out exclusively with the Pharisees and the lawyers and the billionaires? No, he hung out with the homeless, the tax collectors (basically hanging out with Hitler), the hookers, the drunks, the downcasts of society also.

These people had many sins, yet Jesus let them into the house of God, and treated them like they were righteous.

If you say you're a good Christian, why don't you know about this? Why do you claim to be a righteous Christian when you have rejected the core principle of Christianity? Not accepting people of any race, occupation, or status in the eyes of God is like massacre and holocaust to the eyes of the law.

That is a fact for Christians, not a view or an opinion. If you are a Christian, show me you are a Christian. Don't say it and not act it out.

Also, gay marriage has nothing to do with Christianity.

I hope you understand.

He may of hung out with them, to show them that he is a merciful God, and to hopefully convert them form their ways. That is the key, convert, change, there is no acceptance, you may exist, but while you exist you are a sinner, that sin needs to be forgiven, but it can't be forgiven, if you don't ask for it, or worse make a lifestyle out of it.

PS. @scarf
If the UN is the one who created that list it holds as much weight, as their threats against terrorist. The UN does nothing, and it does what ever it takes to get as much funding as possible, they are hugely interested in monetary value. If more money goes in favor of putting in the line "Marriage is a basic right" They will make it. The UN also as a lot of countries that can vote, which shouldn't.

 

[Livewire]

A man-made concept can't be a basic right in my eyes.

Liberty, being a part of the basic "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" tradition of Western/American law and political culture, is a man-made construct, yet also considered a fundamental human right.

 

[droomph]

He may of hung out with them, to show them that he is a merciful God, and to hopefully convert them form their ways. That is the key, convert, change, there is no acceptance, you may exist, but while you exist you are a sinner, that sin needs to be forgiven, but it can't be forgiven, if you don't ask for it, or worse make a lifestyle out of it.

Yes, that is the point. He was Jesus. You are not. Let Jesus do the work. You only need to tell them about the gift of Christ. The conversion is purely between the sinner and God, they do not need you to intervene.

 

[Ivysaur]

No, but if homosexuals want to marry in a church, therefore it is in the house of god, and I doubt there's going to be a priest who is going to join two men (or women) together under the eyes of god.

Sure, it'll be simple to just stick them in a registry office and make them legally married in the eyes of the state, but there's no way it will be done under any orthodox religion.

I hope you have heard about Civil Marriage Ceremonies, which are basically identical to religious ones except, instead of accepting a religious vow in front of a priest, the pair read a civil commitment given to them by a civil servant. I don't know how it works outside of Spain, but again, I'm pretty sure we can't be the only country in the universe to have something like this, which allows non-religious people to celebrate the same thing as everybody else.

In other words, marriage is not something exclusive to any religion whatsoever. So don't worry, no religion is going to be forced to celebrate these ceremonies.

 

[Dakotah]

To tell the truth I wasn't in favour of gay marriage. I have nothing at all against homosexual people, this is just that for me, marriage is a tradition, a tradition meant to unite a man and a woman, and people have to do with that. Here there was already the Civil Solidarity Pact, to allow civil union between homosexual people. It was enough. Maybe, it would have been more fair to give the CSP more rights, but in my opinion we didn't have to legalize gay marriage since we already had that.
Well, anyway I guess it's mostly a good thing so I won't complain about it.

It was also tradition that men were able to keep slaves. It was also tradition that women were not allowed to vote. It was also tradition that one man could have many wives.

Should all of that be allowed today because it was tradition? How do we determine which traditions should be upheld and which ones should be discarded?

The easy answer to this is that any tradition that causes harm should be discarded. Prohibiting same sex couple from marrying the one they love causes real harm. Therefore, the tradition of only allowing a male and female to get married should be discarded. This is what Canada did when in 2005 it opened marriage to same sex couples.

I am for gay marriage, but I don't see marriage as a basic human right. A man-made concept can't be a basic right in my eyes.

Except that on at least 14 separate occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental human right. You may not believe it is, but as I've often noted, belief rarely reflects reality. Our beliefs are prejudiced by our personal world view. Only by being objective can we see the reality of things.

 

[Hume]

I feel the need to point out this wonderful thing called "separation of church and state." In most developed countries it is illegal for the church to have any sort of direct influence in politics. In fact secularism is the closest thing the French have to a state religion, so I'm also surprised that France has only just decided to legalise gay marriage.

I should also mention that civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospitals and with doctors. So, I definitely would consider marriage (gay or otherwise) to be a fundamental human right, especially when it concerns a family.

 

[Esper]

PS. @scarf
If the UN is the one who created that list it holds as much weight, as their threats against terrorist. The UN does nothing, and it does what ever it takes to get as much funding as possible, they are hugely interested in monetary value. If more money goes in favor of putting in the line "Marriage is a basic right" They will make it. The UN also as a lot of countries that can vote, which shouldn't.

It's not that it was written up for the UN which is important, but that it was agreed upon by a large range of political ideologies in different countries. When you think of "marriage" in terms of family, wouldn't you think it is a right to be able to have a family? Wouldn't it seem wrong for a government to tell you you can't have a family?

I hope you have heard about Civil Marriage Ceremonies, which are basically identical to religious ones except, instead of accepting a religious vow in front of a priest, the pair read a civil commitment given to them by a civil servant. I don't know how it works outside of Spain, but again, I'm pretty sure we can't be the only country in the universe to have something like this, which allows non-religious people to celebrate the same thing as everybody else.

In other words, marriage is not something exclusive to any religion whatsoever. So don't worry, no religion is going to be forced to celebrate these ceremonies.

We have things like this in the US, too. (My brother actually was married this way.) I'm sure other places do as well.

 

[Nihilego]

Heh, how did I know that this would turn into a general discussion.

I should also mention that civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospitals and with doctors.

Wait, really? Then this will touch a few nerves, definitely, but... what's all the fuss about? If homosexual couples get the same rights as straight couples, just with a different title (i.e. civil partners vs married couple), then I'm having trouble seeing why it really matters - especially when, and while I know this is making a very sweeping and not entirely correct generalisation, it would seem that the majority of homosexuals are non-religious and yet marriage is, at its very roots, a religious ceremony. This isn't me saying that civil partnerships shouldn't be called marriage, but I'm uncertain of why it matters when the rights are the same.

 

[Hume]

Wait, really? Then this will touch a few nerves, definitely, but... what's all the fuss about? If homosexual couples get the same rights as straight couples, just with a different title (i.e. civil partners vs married couple), then I'm having trouble seeing why it really matters - especially when, and while I know this is making a very sweeping and not entirely correct generalisation, it would seem that the majority of homosexuals are non-religious and yet marriage is, at its very roots, a religious ceremony. This isn't me saying that civil partnerships shouldn't be called marriage, but I'm uncertain of why it matters when the rights are the same.

It's more to do with the principle of equality. I personally (not being religious), am happy with the notion of civil partnerships. The difference in name exists due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. Civil partnerships are not religious acts, but they allow gay couples to have the same legal standings as heterosexual couples. For some gay couples, they might want to be married under the eyes of God or just want to be recognised in the same way and under the same title as heterosexual couples.

But of course, there are still homophobic bigots who defy civil partnerships, recognising them as too similar to marriage.

tldr; marriage and civil partnerships are essentially the same. It's kind of hard to explain, I hope I did a good job.

 

[Ivysaur]

It's more of a "if it's the same, why can't it have the same name". If we are having a car, why do we have to call ours "motor vehicle with four wheels" instead of "car" like everybody else does.

Specially since the Civil Marriages for heterosexuals essentially stripped Marriage out of its inherent religious connotations- you don't really need any priests to get married anymore.

 

[Dakotah]

Wait, really? Then this will touch a few nerves, definitely, but... what's all the fuss about? If homosexual couples get the same rights as straight couples, just with a different title (i.e. civil partners vs married couple), then I'm having trouble seeing why it really matters - especially when, and while I know this is making a very sweeping and not entirely correct generalisation, it would seem that the majority of homosexuals are non-religious and yet marriage is, at its very roots, a religious ceremony. This isn't me saying that civil partnerships shouldn't be called marriage, but I'm uncertain of why it matters when the rights are the same.

Quite simply, because institutions are extremely hesitant to recognize civil unions. Two of the largest institutions that refuse to recognize civil unions are some hospitals and insurance companies. Even though the law in those states that allow civil unions says they should be treated the same as marriages, civil unions are not marriages, and these institutions only recognize marriages.

I should also point out that marriage, in the beginning, was not a religious ceremony. It was originally about ensuring that the man's children are biologically his, and so women were treated as mere 'property'. It wasn't until around the 8th century, with the increasing power of the Catholic Church, that religion was able to influence marriage. It was at this time that, for a marriage to be considered legal, a priest's blessing was required.

Now, marriage is strictly a social contract, independent of the church, where the state permits clergy to officiate weddings. But it is the state that controls marriage and determines who should be illegible to marry.

Holy matrimony, on the other hand, is an exclusive domain of the church, but it is not marriage as defined by the state. It is a religious ceremony which has no legal recognition. Only by applying for a marriage license from the state can a couple be recognized as married. A ceremony in a church without this license is a meaningless one to the state and is not recognized.

 

[Gliberty]

I like how it was claimed that same-sex marriage is barbaric since it goes against social norms that have been set in place for an extended period of time.

Hmm? Can you think of any other things that went against the social norm for many years? Ah, for one, there are voting rights; women and blacks couldn't vote in the US until the 20th century. Maybe that was a barbaric action to allow those groups to vote?

Actually, it is much more of a progressive action; civilizing entails change and progression in order to form a more enhanced state of society, rather than an unchanged state.