How soon until this becomes a political issue...

[bszopi]

Well, even though I really don't understand why, gay marriage has become a hot political topic lately. Why? Because it goes against religious beliefs of the definition of a marriage. Anyway, that's not what this is about (although feel free to discuss you views if you like, I guess).

What this topic is about is the following article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...hip/index.html

Seems that the British Navy has allowed a sailor the right to be considered a Satanist, and even allowing him to practice satanic rituals on board as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation and safety of the boat. Very interesting... And of course, then the politicians had to get involved. Cehck it out and discuss.

And then what do you think would happen if something like this was brought up in our military?

[PlatinumZ34]

Satanism is wrong. Obviously the private beliefs of individuals anywhere including the armed forces are their own affair but I hope it doesn't spread

Is she hoping satanism doesn't spread, or freedom of religion? Actually it doesn't matter, she's treating satanism like a disease or sickness that could be spread, next she will authorize the use of deadly weapons on those who do not believe in Christ. I love "free" countries.

Oh ya, im Christian...

If it was brought up in "our" military (im calling this the North American armed forces)... I'm pretty sure they would do the same thing or supress the individual, either way it wouldn't make it to the public, unless it beniffited Bush/Kerry in some way.

[Lyle's GTP]

Ummm, don't you have to be Christian to believe in satan? People are fucked.

Lyle

[geoffinbc]

So what whos it gonna hurt? You scared hes gonna summon satan and place a plague amongst the world?

I guess some adults need imaginary friends as much as some children do

[bszopi]

I'm not saying its going to hurt anyone. Just like, why does 2 males or 2 females having a piece of paper saying they are legally married hurt anyone? Its because its against the Bible, supposedly. Well, Satan is the evil part of the Bible, therefore acknowledging satanism as a legal religion is no different than gay marriage.

As far as the imaginary freinds part... if you believe in God, then you must believe in Satan. Its all part of the same thing... you can't believe in God and NOT believe in Satan. That's like saying you believe in the moon landing, but you don't think we have the technology to have the space station.

[geoffinbc]

Yea and some poeple still say the earth is flat too. Some people just like to screw with things. So what if gay marriges is not what the bible says. Do people not realise that marrige has nothing to do with religon anymore. It is a legaly binding agreement. You can get married by a justice of the peace and not my a minister (or whatever other head figure you want to insert here)

So why should marrige (gay or otherwise) be intertwined with reigon unless you want it to be?

[bszopi]

I'm just stating the reason why people are so against gay marriage. I'm not against it... in fact, if 2 people are happy together, then I think they should be able to be legally married. I don't see why it should affect other people. But other people don't see it that way. They see it as morally wrong and against God's word.

[geoffinbc]

Yup I agree.

[Rhedalert]

[ikessky]

"Marriage" is a term that basically came from religions. Marriage in the Bible is defined to be the union of a man and a woman. Let the gays be together if it makes them happy, but don't call it "marriage".

Personally, I don't understand how the Satanists can not believe in the concept of God. I mean, how do they think Satan came to be? Because I'm a Christain, I believe what the Bible says is true. Satan was an angel that was cast out of heaven.

Back to the real topic though, I guess the guy should be given the right to practice whatever religion he chooses. I mean, you'd be in trouble if you isolated the Muslims or the Buddists wouldn't you? Why should a Satanist be any different? As long as he's not hurting anyone of course.......

[Manitcor]

"Marriage" is a term that basically came from religions. Marriage in the Bible is defined to be the union of a man and a woman. Let the gays be together if it makes them happy, but don't call it "marriage".

Personally, I don't understand how the Satanists can not believe in the concept of God. I mean, how do they think Satan came to be? Because I'm a Christain, I believe what the Bible says is true. Satan was an angel that was cast out of heaven.

Back to the real topic though, I guess the guy should be given the right to practice whatever religion he chooses. I mean, you'd be in trouble if you isolated the Muslims or the Buddists wouldn't you? Why should a Satanist be any different? As long as he's not hurting anyone of course.......

from websters:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

Goverment and religion should never be mixed, despite what people like to think this is still not the case in the USA and neverhas been.

Im going to stay out of this one, Im atheist

[Dave]

There's so many reasons why homosexuals should not be married.

Mind you, I have MANY homosexual friends, but I don't feel that they should marry.

even if you keep the bible out of all of the arguments (which you have to in a legal debate like this) you still end up with a very solid argument...

"Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. This is discriminatory
because it considers the gender of the people in the legal union. You refer
to the SCOTUS decision showing that denial of rights based upon "sexual
orientation" and gender is unconstitutional. You also claim that Loving v
Virginia recognizes marriage as a right. You assert that people cannot be
deprived of their right to marriage unless the government can show a
LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST in doing so (14th amendment)."

To address this complex issue there are several definitions that have been
established.

Marriage:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm

[A contract made in due form of law...It vests in the husband all the
personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and
choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to
possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of
the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives,
and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It
vests in the wife after the husband's death, an estate in dower in the
husband's lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when
he dies intestate. In some states, the wife now retains her separate
property by statute.]

Within the contract of marriage the individual members can and do bind both
participants to obligations incurred such as debts, property purchases,
procreation. The state recognizes the marriage contract as incurring and
owning those obligations. Until such time of its dissolution that marriage
contract is liable for performace to those obligations. In the eyes of the
law the marriage contract comprises one unit consisting of two individuals.

Discrimination

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm

SCOTUS does not consider it unfair discrimination if the parties in question
cannot meet the established prerequisites for employment, contractual
obligations, educational access to mention a few. Likewise case law has many
precedents where discrimination based upon biological differences is
tolerated where those biological differences have a direct effect upon the
situation under consideration. One class concerns disabled persons and
their ability to execute the terms of employment. Another class constitutes
gender issues regarding males and females. Within the gender class there
are issues regarding pregnancy, abortion and equal pay for equal
performance.

It is clear that discrimination based upon biological differences is
tolerated by the courts insomuch as those biological differences have a
direct effect upon the situation under consideration. The key to
understanding the court's tolerance is in knowing that those biological
differences create an UNEQUAL condition between the parties concerned and
therefore they are not required to equal treatment under the law.

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+490+u!2Es!2E+228!3A]!28[group+syllabus!3A]!7C[level+case+citation!3A]!29/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

If a candidate is rejected for promotion but lacks the necessary credentials
then there is no discrimination whether the rejected candidate was a
minority, female or homosexual.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=male%20abortion&url=/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html

A woman can abort a pregnancy without the permission or even notification of
the father of the child.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=difference%20men%20women&url=/supct/html/94-1941.ZO.html

The heightened review standard our precedent establishes does not make sex a
proscribed classification. Supposed "inherent differences" are no longer
accepted as a ground for race or national origin classifications. See Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Physical differences between men and women,
however, are enduring: "[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made
up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both."
Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193 (1946).

SCOTUS has ruled that the sexes (male and female) are not fungible, meaning
interchangeable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SCOTUS understands marriage as a contractual union betweeen two parties
taking on a new identity binding them to obligations and responsibilities as
long as the contract remains in effect. SCOTUS also understands that
discrimination based upon biological differences is not unconstitutional if
those differences relate directly to the question at hand. And finally the
"equality" guarantees against discrimination are only applicable in
situations where each party has an equal claim based upon their
qualifications to demand equality.

Currently 49 states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.
The challenge put forth by homoactivists claim that this unfairly
discriminates against unions of two same sex people. For the purpose of
this discussion that creates two types of union, same-sex and opposite-sex.

But by court declaration the sexes are not fungible therefore creating an
obvious legal difference between the two unions. That being two men or two
women are not equivalent to one man and one woman.

Furthermore an important immutable biological difference exists between the
two unions. Opposite sex unions can procreate whereas same sex unions
cannot. This is regardless of their intention or ability to procreate.

And finally to a lesser degree it has been shown that same-sex couples do
not provide comparable parenting. Recent studies by FRC, interviews with
children raised by same sex parents, independent research from Australia,
coupled with a reevaluation and discrediting of the statistically-flawed
studies provided to the court show that same sex parents in general do not
provide equal positive parenting to children in their care compared to
heterosexual couples.

It is difficult to believe that homosexual couples would not have any impact
upon impressionable young children by their public and possibly private
behaviours.

For the reasons stated above the the two unions in question are different
biologically, legally and functionally. Because of these differences the
current structure of the marriage contract in no way discriminates or
deprives same-sex unions of any constitutional rights.

this is one of the few intelligent arguments out there.

--Dave.

[SappySE107]

Fine, call it whatever you want but let them legally unite and reap the tax benefits from it.

[ikessky]

I'm sorry, but I cannot give an unbiased answer to the homosexual issue because of my beliefs. I will outright admit that now.

What is going to happen to our taxes as soon as all the gays can reap the benefits?

[bud36light]

Fuck I just KNEW somebody would bring up that episode of South Park!