Gay Marriage

[Elaina]

And which do you prefer?

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Elaina

And which do you prefer?

I could write an essay on that question, the answer is far too complex.

(I've just deleted part of an essay - I have no clear answers)

[irmamar]

My country is non-denominational (not sure, I mean "aconfesional") since 1978, but marriage exists and it's not considered a religious matter. State admits catholic wedding, but if it's not well registered, one can't be married for the State, although can be well married for their religion. Other religions don't have any agreement with the State, so couples must be married in a civil way, because if they don't do, their marriage won't be valid.

I agree with Perikles about the question of the rights a marriage has for both partners. Not only a widow pension, but also inheritance, properties, nationality, etc. had been denied to homosexual partners before the law allowed homosexual marriages. Now they have the same rights as heterosexual couples, so I think it's a great advantage.

I insist on separate the meaning of "marriage" from religions because I consider it a civil right. Another thing would be consider a religious marriage, because the couples agree to follow a religious act in front of their God (Whoever it is). But the question is that marriage is a figure in civil law (Derecho civil), not religious (I mean in my country), and you're only married if the State recognises your wedding, whatever the rite may be.

Let me add that most of the marriages in my country are civil ones, not religious.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by irmamar

My country is non-denominational since 1978.

@Irma - ¿quieres intentar de nuevo?

[JPablo]

DRAE
matrimonio.
(Del lat. matrimonĭum).
1. m. Unión de hombre y mujer concertada mediante determinados ritos o formalidades legales.
2. m. En el catolicismo, sacramento por el cual el hombre y la mujer se ligan perpetuamente con arreglo a las prescripciones de la Iglesia.
3. m. coloq. Marido y mujer. En este cuarto vive un matrimonio.
4. m. P. Rico p. us. Plato que se hace de arroz blanco y habichuelas guisadas.

MOLINER
matrimonio (del lat. «matrimoníum»)
1 («Contraer, Celebrar el [o un]») m. Unión de un hombre y una mujer, legalizada con las ceremonias y formalidades religiosas o civiles establecidas, para constituir una *familia. ¤ Constituye uno de los *sacramentos de la Iglesia.
2 *Pareja humana, formada por hombre y mujer que están casados entre sí: ‘Esa familia está formada por el matrimonio y tres hijos’.

Pues como siempre los diccionarios españoles se quedan obsoletos... o habría que hablar de "asociación homosexual sancionada por el estado y la sociedad como un todo" o algún otro tipo de "explicao".
"Asociación conyugal" o algo así, porque como Irma dice, la etimología no concuerda...

También se podría llamar "arrejuntamiento civil" "gremio cooperativo de marido y marida" o de "esposa y esposona"... Sin ánimo de ofender, sino de definir... aunque supongo que más les vale a los lexicógrafos añadir las acepciones correspondientes...

No es un tema fácil porque está politizado...

[CrOtALiTo]

Originally Posted by JPablo

DRAE
matrimonio.
(Del lat. matrimonĭum).
1. m. Unión de hombre y mujer concertada mediante determinados ritos o formalidades legales.
2. m. En el catolicismo, sacramento por el cual el hombre y la mujer se ligan perpetuamente con arreglo a las prescripciones de la Iglesia.
3. m. coloq. Marido y mujer. En este cuarto vive un matrimonio.
4. m. P. Rico p. us. Plato que se hace de arroz blanco y habichuelas guisadas.

MOLINER
matrimonio (del lat. «matrimoníum»)
1 («Contraer, Celebrar el [o un]») m. Unión de un hombre y una mujer, legalizada con las ceremonias y formalidades religiosas o civiles establecidas, para constituir una *familia. ¤ Constituye uno de los *sacramentos de la Iglesia.
2 *Pareja humana, formada por hombre y mujer que están casados entre sí: ‘Esa familia está formada por el matrimonio y tres hijos’.

Pues como siempre los diccionarios españoles se quedan obsoletos... o habría que hablar de "asociación homosexual sancionada por el estado y la sociedad como un todo" o algún otro tipo de "explicao".
"Asociación conyugal" o algo así, porque como Irma dice, la etimología no concuerda...

También se podría llamar "arrejuntamiento civil" "gremio cooperativo de marido y marida" o de "esposa y esposona"... Sin ánimo de ofender, sino de definir... aunque supongo que más les vale a los lexicógrafos añadir las acepciones correspondientes...

No es un tema fácil porque está politizado...

Your investigation gave as result of a centralist of the definition Matrimony and well just no one's respect the absolute definition of the word.

Here in my country there're a new politic about the gay marriage. Only that the definition or at least the the word means, it's not very accepted for the folks in the country, here the people are more incline for the politics church, and I guess that kind of politics are more important for the people who the understanding of the facts.

I agree with the gay marriage and I'm not accept all of course, but everyone have rights in this little world and everyone can decide about their life.

Therefore if the people decide to do the contrary to the society, the it result perfect for me.

[ookami]

Originally Posted by Perikles

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but whatever it is, (homo)sexuality in Ancient Greece has nothing to do with present-day homosexuality, and they most certainly never had gay marriages. It is always misunderstood, but I think that particular topic is outside the scope of this forum.

Sí, me expresé mal, no quise hablar de matrimonio si no de relaciones homosexuales. Es sabido que el contexto era muuuy distinto al actual, pero la esencia no iba mucho más lejos: hombres teniendo relaciones entre si, generalmente por voluntad. (dejando de lado a los esclavos) Solo a eso apuntaba cuando cité el ejemplo. El resto por supuesto que queda fuera del scope del foro -o al menos del post.

Originally Posted by Elaina

It is true what they say.........Religion and politics are too controversial for discussion in a forum especially because people are so passionate about their beliefs.

Why? I think that it's easier this way than doing it face to face. You've more time to think, to correct, to analize what the other is saying to you, to search information, etc. It should be easier. The problem is another one: that "passion" you talked about. The passion of trying to convince, to have the truth, to defeat the other. Because if you just want to express your point of view and analize other's points of view, there shouldn't be any problems. But... only 0,02 of people... that way.

[irmamar]

Originally Posted by Perikles

@Irma - ¿quieres intentar de nuevo?

From...

Originally Posted by ookami

But... only 0,02 of people... that way.

I don't understand, what do you mean?

[ookami]

"But maybe only 0,02% of people are that way"

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Perikles

@Irma - ¿quieres intentar de nuevo?

Originally Posted by irmamar

From...

Sólo esta frase: "My country is non-denominational since 1978"

[poli]

Only two percent? Maybe, but I'm in Manhattan where dogs far outnumber
children. Perhaps for that reason, the percentage seems more to me.
¿Solamente dos porciento? Tal vez, pero pero paso la mayoría de mi vida en Manhattan donde la población es mas grande que la población de niños. Por es el 2 porcentajo me parece bajo,

In times of high unemployment, weddings employ many. That's a practical argument in favor of gay marriage. By the way, divorce lawyers ought to love the idea of gay marriage ..not to mention marriage counselors.$$$$
En tiempos de alto desempleo las bodas emplean muchos. Eso is un argumento fuerte en favor del matrimonio gay. A proposito, los
abogados que especialicen en divorcio deben de estar en favor
de matrimonio gay tambien los consejeros del matrimonio.$$$$

[Tarential]

I find it interesting that the majority of arguments against gay marriage are based on religion, and marriage being a "religious binding" instead of a "civil contract". The argument of course is that because Christianity is mostly anti-homosexual (I apologize to any Christians reading this who are more open minded) then homosexual marriages are either unrecognizable by the church or an act against God. Well, that is perfectly fine as far as it goes. I doubt we'll see many 'religious' marriages between same sex couples.

However, that being said, the institution of marriage far predates Christianity. There were marriage ceremonies in ancient Egypt, almost a thousand years before the first semblance of what we now consider Christianity existed. Marriage represents an understanding between two (*edit: two or more*) individuals and how they feel about each other. The marriage can be recognized by church, or state... or both, or neither. It is still a perfectly valid marriage to the two people involved.

So, I must take this reasoning one step further. The argument here is certainly not "Should the church recognize same sex marriages?" We all know, of course, that the church would not officially do so willingly (and I don't believe in trying to force them to accept it, either). The real question here is "Should the state recognize same sex marriages?" This takes the religious aspect completely out of it.

As far as that goes, I have yet to hear someone give a good reason that same sex marriages shouldn't be accepted by the state (remember the ideal is separation of church and state, even if it doesn't always happen, thus saying "The state should believe in God and abide by His decisions" isn't a valid argument). Someone earlier did mention that the rules for what benefits married couples get by state law should be changed, and that is again a separate issue from whether or not same sex marriages should be recognized, one I won't argue either way.

In summary, state acceptance of gay marriage cannot be logically argued against on religious grounds. Only religious acceptance of gay marriage can be argued as such. Take from this post what you will, because I don't intend to reply to any religious fanatics who jump down my throat for suggesting that marriage isn't a religious institution.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by ookami

"But maybe only 0.02% of people are that way"

The comma may be throwing him off. In English we use a period to denote decimals. In money.. $12.32 which is Twelve Dollars and Thirty-Two cents. In percentage... 12.32% which is Twelve point Thirty-Two percent.

But maybe only point oh two percent of people are that way.

Not really sure how to spell OH heh but that's the way I would say it instead of point zero two, but that would be correct too.

[Tarential]

Nitpicking here, but while: ".02" would be a correct way of representing two percent (though incomplete, as it could also simply mean the number 'two hundredths'), using ".02%" is incorrect. Why? "Percent" is "per 100" (cent is french for 100). So, it would be stating "0.02 for each 100" or "0.02 / 100" which is 0.0002 as you can see.

So, 2% = .02, and .02% = .0002.

You'll probably be understood by laymen if you write "only .02% of people" as they probably wouldn't think in terms of fractions of a percent. To anyone who has taken a few extra math or physics courses there is going to be a world of difference, however. Almost like the difference between writing "0.02000" and "0.02". To most people they'll be the same thing (look up significant figures if you are unsure of why I differentiate).

[CrOtALiTo]

Originally Posted by Tarential

I find it interesting that the majority of arguments against gay marriage are based on religion, and marriage being a "religious binding" instead of a "civil contract". The argument of course is that because Christianity is mostly anti-homosexual (I apologize to any Christians reading this who are more open minded) then homosexual marriages are either unrecognizable by the church or an act against God. Well, that is perfectly fine as far as it goes. I doubt we'll see many 'religious' marriages between same sex couples.

However, that being said, the institution of marriage far predates Christianity. There were marriage ceremonies in ancient Egypt, almost a thousand years before the first semblance of what we now consider Christianity existed. Marriage represents an understanding between two (*edit: two or more*) individuals and how they feel about each other. The marriage can be recognized by church, or state... or both, or neither. It is still a perfectly valid marriage to the two people involved.

So, I must take this reasoning one step further. The argument here is certainly not "Should the church recognize same sex marriages?" We all know, of course, that the church would not officially do so willingly (and I don't believe in trying to force them to accept it, either). The real question here is "Should the state recognize same sex marriages?" This takes the religious aspect completely out of it.

As far as that goes, I have yet to hear someone give a good reason that same sex marriages shouldn't be accepted by the state (remember the ideal is separation of church and state, even if it doesn't always happen, thus saying "The state should believe in God and abide by His decisions" isn't a valid argument). Someone earlier did mention that the rules for what benefits married couples get by state law should be changed, and that is again a separate issue from whether or not same sex marriages should be recognized, one I won't argue either way.

In summary, state acceptance of gay marriage cannot be logically argued against on religious grounds. Only religious acceptance of gay marriage can be argued as such. Take from this post what you will, because I don't intend to reply to any religious fanatics who jump down my throat for suggesting that marriage isn't a religious institution.

What's up Tanrential.

In this moment I read your commentary about the gay marriage, and I agree with your investigation, because likely the people is inclined for the religion and doesn't think about the feeling of the other, for example if the church says the gay marriage is the worst in the world, then the people believe in the divine word of the father and well I respect all the religions, but I'm not agree with the decision of the church and much less of the people.

I believe that everyone have the right of live as they want it.

Nor the religion and the society ought opine about the life of other.

[irmamar]

I agree with Tarential 100%.

Ookami, what I didn't understand was "that way". Which way?

[Perikles]

I'm guessing that this is the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual marriages. There are various obscure methods of referring to homosexuality, one of which is 'that way' (I think)

[irmamar]

OK, I didn't know it. Thanks.

[poli]

En los fines de los años cincuenta y todos los años seisenta en EEUU había el moviemiento en favor de derechos civiles. En aquellos años era prohibido que una persona negra se casa con gente blanca en muchos
estados incluyendo California. El cantante moreno Sammy Davis JR intentó casarse con rubia Mae Brit en California y eso causó un gran polémica.Había un comentadora que dijo si permite eso próximo van a permitir matrimonio entre gente y símeos.

El otro día oí el mismo comentario usado contra el caso del matrimonio gay. Es una pregunta de la polítca y gente que busca libertad para todos contra otros que buscan libertad para algunos y opresión contra lo demás.
Yo sé cual lado favoresco.

PS
Is my use of lo demás correct, or should I use los demás.

At the end of the 1950"s and into the 1960's we had the civil rights
movement in the United States. Prior to 1964, in may states (California included) it was prohibited for black people to marry whites. There was a famous black singer named Sammy Davis JR who tried to marry white actess Mae Brit in California. This caused quite a stir. There was a commentator who said if they permit this, next thing they'll allow marriage between humans and apes.

The other day I heard a commentary with the same logic against gay marriage. This is really a question of politics, and those who seek freedom for everyone against those who want freedom for some and opression against the rest. I know what side I'm on.

[ookami]

... jajaja, nada que ver... Se nota que no leyeron el post atentamente. En esa respuesta ni siquiera me estaba refiriendo a los homosexuales, si no que comentaba el comentario de Elaina. Solo 0,02 personas sobre 100 (hiperbole) son de las que saben discutir y no intentan convencer o tener la razón como si de una competencia se tratara y si no la tienen, les tiemblan los simientos de sus ideales. A eso me refería.