What are your opinions on Gay Marriage?

To say the role of religion in government has been completely negative (I assume that is what you mean when you call it the "most blasphemous union") is a little extreme.

For example, he abolition of slavery was in part influenced by Christianity. William Wilberforce, the man that got slavery abolished in Britain, confessed that his faith was the reason that he pursued abolition. The abolition movement in the United States was started by Quakers.


I would say that it is bad to have a state enforced religion, however there is no shame in letting your beliefs (or unbelief) influence how you vote.

American politics still does have hints of Christian based ethics, beliefs, and norms applied to it... mostly just to make peace with the public and keep society from turning on itself. It provided a well rounded foundation but it's not the core of it, more like it's a part of the ever growing shell that surrounds the core.

Because of this many people from the 3 major religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) try to see the whole of American society still with some fall-backs into this. It's not perfect, but it does provide stability. The problem is many people of minority groups or lesser groups other than the majority, tend to pull religion and government into the same focus. Gay marriage is one such issue. Legal Civil Unions have been allowed for all groups (basically two people living together legally that form a family by definition). The term marriage has always been a religious term in which two people in a legal civil union are "joined" in a cerimonial essense. Many people fail however to see that the term Legal Civil Union is what is recognized by law. Marriage is what is recognized by a organization such as a church. And this is where everything gets worded wrong and turned upside-down.

However it goes back to the other statement I made... Homosexual couples have the right to enter into Legal Civil Unions with each other. Heterosexual couples have the right to enter into a Legal Civil Union with each other. However, marriage is what is recognized by a religious organization, and they have the full right to recognize or not recognize it within their own system. The problem is Gay couples want to not just have the Legal Civil Union but the religious Marriage also, and they are going about it the wrong way. Government can not force a religion to say two people are married, period, but they feel they need to have them do so.

And the whole mess is not even about government regulations really. It's over being recognized by a religious organization(s) over what is literally a single word. I hate to say it, but petitioning the government can't really do anything, and changes in laws don't even help because any change will be meaningless.

Better idea for Gay Right Advocates... petition religious organizations to recognize not just legal civil unions under the law, but recognize that regardless of gender, two people can also be married in a religious aspect as well. That's where they need to start it and finish it, not Washington, D.C.

Better idea for Gay Right Advocates... petition religious organizations to recognize not just legal civil unions under the law, but recognize that regardless of gender, two people can also be married in a religious aspect as well. That's where they need to start it and finish it, not Washington, D.C.

Trust me, we already do that. However, honestly, members of extreme religious organizations are not the electorate causing the slowed speed of change with this issue; it's the vast majority of Americans in between, who don't really have an opinion either way but are swayed towards one side depending on the best argument they hear and/or personal experience, such as having LGBT friends and family. This is a fundamental rule of thumb in United States politics for most "controversial issues," that at least 50+% of the voting electorate doesn't declare a "side" so staunchly as the other 50%, and can be influenced either way. Those are the people we're talking to the most.

I cant decide to be sad that people would evidently rather argue with jamie, or happy that my post was possibly bulletproof.

So far, the religion talk in this thread has made me wonder,

how the pineapple does freethinkers get married ?

So far, the religion talk in this thread has made me wonder,

how the pineapple does freethinkers get married ?

You can marry officiating only in the city hall (at least in Brazil you can) no need to go to a church or something.

EDIT: And it's still called a marriage, not just a civil union. Civil Marriage =/= Religious Marriage but they are both marriages.

You can marry officiating only in the city hall (at least in Brazil you can) no need to go to a church or something.

same in all of north america. and some people get married within a church or some sort of ceremony without exactly being a religious bunch.

EDIT: like the royal family, oh hahahahaha.

I cant decide to be sad that people would evidently rather argue with jamie, or happy that my post was possibly bulletproof.

If you mean respond to the post that basically said:
- People do/don't do things out of fear and/or reward
- People do things because as a "unit" they are more likely to survive.

And by "people" you mean the people/"atheist" who are responding to Jamie.

Well I could say that the Neo-Fraudian like perspective is a bit "weak" due to fact people generally have more triggers to their actions then fear...

It has been legal in canada for a decade now i think and nothing wrong has happened... yet lol so why not for america

The only issue I see with this is how kids are raised. Not because gay same sex couples will be bad parents, it's just that society isn't ready for that. Society tends to be super conservative against huge changes.

The only issue I see with this is how kids are raised. Not because gay same sex couples will be bad parents, it's just that society isn't ready for that. Society tends to be super conservative against huge changes.

Gay couples are already raising kids. Society is coping.
The only problem is that while the kid knows both his parents, as do the neighbors, the state only acknowledges one. So
- if the unofficial parent wants to put the kid on their medical insurance, or fly overseas with him, or register him for school, lack of official parenthood status makes it hard to impossible;
- if the parents separate, the kid will probably lose both visitation and child-support from the unofficial parent;
- if the official parent dies, the kid might be sent to live with some blood relative they hardly know, because the law doesn't know their other parent is right there with them;
- if the unofficial parent dies, the kid gets no part of their estate (by default).

Having the gay couple formally registered as married, and as equal parents of their children, is to the children's benefit.

Gay couples are already raising kids. Society is coping.
The only problem is that while the kid knows both his parents, as do the neighbors, the state only acknowledges one. So
- if the unofficial parent wants to put the kid on their medical insurance, or fly overseas with him, or register him for school, lack of official parenthood status makes it hard to impossible;
- if the parents separate, the kid will probably lose both visitation and child-support from the unofficial parent;
- if the official parent dies, the kid might be sent to live with some blood relative they hardly know, because the law doesn't know their other parent is right there with them;
- if the unofficial parent dies, the kid gets no part of their estate (by default).

Having the gay couple formally registered as married, and as equal parents of their children, is to the children's benefit.

That's not the case in Argentinean legislation, but I see your point.

As far as Argentina's society goes, most people agree with the civil union, legal rights, inheritances, bla bla. But most people are against adoption by same sex couples.

The only issue I see with this is how kids are raised. Not because gay same sex couples will be bad parents, it's just that society isn't ready for that. Society tends to be super conservative against huge changes.

I turned out fine.

I think this ties in with the whole seperation of church and state thing we've been dealing with for hundreds of years.

It's like my mother always says (quoting Comedy Central) "Why should straight people be the only ones to suffer through the agony of marriage?"

I turned out fine.

Are you being serious? If so, I'd like to know some backstory.

I think this ties in with the whole seperation of church and state thing we've been dealing with for hundreds of years.

It's like my mother always says (quoting Comedy Central) "Why should straight people be the only ones to suffer through the agony of marriage?"

France is already ahead on the way of separation of government and religion. You are not even allowed to use religious signs (crosses, typical muslim clothes, etc) if you are in a public school or you work for the state.

And regarding homosexuality, my classmates here have absolutely no problem with it (we have quite a few gay/lesbian couples in the classroom and no one feels bad about it).