Re: Tzeentch's Thread of Everchanging Topics

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

So basically, the State Marriage should be removed completely, and something should be implemented that's completely Secular, Like: A contract of partnership or something. for couples.

I'd be in favor of that, but I have this feeling that there'd be a lot of butthurt if a "State Marriage" would practicaly be called something different, since it's not "Marriage" anymore.

[Eowale]

This is not at all obvious, though, considering the communal status of marriage. If it was a purely private and personal thing, why bother holding an "official" ceremony to seek recognition by the state and the community in the first place?

The thing is, that being a homosexual in the US is like being treated like a lower class than the rest. They are looked down upon, discriminated, pushed away from the society. Just because the old fellows that sit in their defensive bubble say that they are not human for being homosexual.

And, Amaryl, the reason why they want to be married in a church, is because it's tradition. If they want to get married in a church, they should be able to. Just because some fat priest that sits and pretends that he is above everyone else tells them "No", should they not be allowed to marry? The entire problem is, they are not allowed to do what they please. Why? Because they are homosexual. That's the only reason. They want to fit in the society because they are being treated wrong. All for something they cannot control or decide upon.

[Amaryl]

Now on the Subject of Adoption.

In the Netherlands the biggest "problem", (and by "problem" I mean that it isn't actually a problem, but more a personal preference to which people feel slighted, Is that the minimum age of the Child you can adopt as a couple Goes up as the average age of the couple goes up. I'm not exactly sure what the ratio's are, but the bottom line is this.

Couples that want to Adopt, through legal means in the netherlands (i.e not going to china and pick up a girl, which is an option inaccessible to Gays) Either have to be fairly young (around 30 i believe) to get a baby.

Now the thing is that most Gay couples usually consider adoption at a higher age, when both their lives are already firmly cemented, (40-50)
which means that they can't adopt a baby, but they need to adopt a toddler, or heck even a kid of the age of 6-8. and there are a bunch that don't want that. Which can be reasonable.

but that doesn't mean they can't adopt, just that they would rather be retired when their kid is in highschool.

Now from what I've heard and read, the adoption regulations are being more rigorously tested on same-sex couples then on hetero couples, but I cannot attest to the veracity of that claim, since the regulations are still the same. Though I can imagine that the interpretation thereof might vary between social service councillors..

But in the end, Like Penguins, Gays can and should be able to fill that niche market, of taking care of abandoned kids.

[Amaryl]

I'd be in favor of that, but I have this feeling that there'd be a lot of butthurt if a "State Marriage" would practicaly be called something different, since it's not "Marriage" anymore.

A lot of butthurt, but its more fair. and after a year or three, we'll get used to the idea. heck in the netherlands we already have the "Samenlevings Contract" livingtogether contract, for non-married couples to get the same rights as married couples, though its three times the paperwork to get the same rights as married couples, which is just wrong (and it still doesn't include paternal custody so you have to go through the adoption paperwork also if you have a kid).

And, Amaryl, the reason why they want to be married in a church, is because it's tradition. If they want to get married in a church, they should be able to. Just because some fat priest that sits and pretends that he is above everyone else tells them "No", should they not be allowed to marry? The entire problem is, they are not allowed to do what they please. Why? Because they are homosexual. That's the only reason. They want to fit in the society because they are being treated wrong. All for something they cannot control or decide upon.

Emancipation, affords everyone or should afford everyone the same-state rights, regardless of sex, religion, etc. And that is what it should be based on, (which they don't have in a lot of US-states but that's state-marriage, not church marriage)
The fat Priest has as much freedom of speech as the gay couple, and as such he can refuse to perform a form of Tradition on people he doesn't find suited, and you denying him that is wrong. Why is the homo-sexuals ability to perform free speech, more important then the Priest' in his own home?

I already established that same-sex couples can do the exact same ceremonial bullshit as hetero couples, just not a church if the priest doesn't allow it. And that should be that, the gay's should just fucking respect the priest his wishes. Just like the Priest should just fucking respect the fact that gay people dance around half-naked through the streets on the village people once a year and act like retards.

I wouldn't allow a Jihadist, preach the Jihad in my own home, no i'd bloody kick him out. just like a priest should be able to kick out some entitled pricks out of his own who he vehemently disagrees with. Respect the host.

[Mandui]

The thing is, that being a homosexual in the US is like being treated like a lower class than the rest. They are looked down upon, discriminated, pushed away from the society. Just because the old fellows that sit in their defensive bubble say that they are not human for being homosexual.

And, Amaryl, the reason why they want to be married in a church, is because it's tradition. If they want to get married in a church, they should be able to. Just because some fat priest that sits and pretends that he is above everyone else tells them "No", should they not be allowed to marry? The entire problem is, they are not allowed to do what they please. Why? Because they are homosexual. That's the only reason. They want to fit in the society because they are being treated wrong. All for something they cannot control or decide upon.

What I don't get is the exaggerated noise they make. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against homosexuals in any way, I have friends amongst them that proves such. But hell, you don't really have to go around and yell "I'M A HOMO YOOO!!!!" in everyone's face, just because you feel suppressed. That logic would imply that every other "issues" loaded group of people should become just as loud. It's fine, you're a homo, and that guy over there was raped by his uncle or something when he was a kid. So what? We all have problems to deal with. No reason to be obnoxious or overly zealous in loudly presenting one's sexual pride, like many of them do. If there's anything that annoys me about them, then it's that.

As for the wedding thing..demanding to have it done in a church is like demanding a drink in a gay bar while wearing a t-shirt saying "GAYS SUCK". You can't have it all.

[Eowale]

I just noticed, Im great at bringing up discussion topics.
However, my laptops battery is dying. Six more hours of schoolwork without music.. ffffff-..

[Rentarn]

So I found more footage on Mists of Pandaria.

[corleth]

it is kate bush *swoon*

is it wrong that i think she looks incredibly awesome and stylish

kate bush is both awesome and stylish, so... not wrong one bit! that's the reason i have it as my avatar, after all.

[Morinth]

Gay marriages should be allowed. Christians and whatever other religions need to accept the fact that not everyone believes in their views and they shouldn't have control over it.

My aunt was a lesbian and we couldn't even have a proper funeral for her when she died of breast cancer because of those idiots.

[Lexgrad]

A new look for Lex?

[Nithel]

This really puzzles me.. If you don't believe in their views, why do you want to get married before a church? Civil marriage is the only one that's lawful.

A lot of butthurt, but its more fair. and after a year or three, we'll get used to the idea. heck in the netherlands we already have the "Samenlevings Contract" livingtogether contract, for non-married couples to get the same rights as married couples, though its three times the paperwork to get the same rights as married couples, which is just wrong (and it still doesn't include paternal custody so you have to go through the adoption paperwork also if you have a kid).

In Belgium, it also isn't 'forever' and the contract can only last a set amount of time (Not entirely sure on this but it's not long. 5 years or so?) Meaning you have to make up a new contract every so often year. 'Living together' is also a very ambiguous term in Belgian law. There's a bunch of problems with it.

[Morinth]

This really puzzles me.. If you don't believe in their views, why do you want to get married before a church? Civil marriage is the only one that's lawful.

They want the option. You see big flashy white weddings, with all the trimmings. They want that too, and I don't blame them. My mother hates Christians, yet she had a big white wedding in a church. If they let a woman like that in, they should let gay people in too. They're a lot nicer than my mother.

[Amaryl]

Gay marriages should be allowed. Christians and whatever other religions need to accept the fact that not everyone believes in their views and they shouldn't have control over it.

Why shouldn't gays accept that not everyone believes their views and that because of that a church wedding (for which you need a minister/priest etc) isn't going to be part of the package.

My aunt was a lesbian and we couldn't even have a proper funeral for her when she died of breast cancer because of those idiots.

I'm not sure what you consider "Proper" and neither do I want to impose myself on the wishes of your Aunt, but, if she couldn't get the proper religious treatment at her funeral, based on certain religious values, how can you then still consider those values "Proper"?

imo, the fact that they're bigotted idiots, holding on to values of the stone age, isn't that enough proof, that those values are stupid and you should start believing something else? or do you wish to continue in this charade, of wanting so desperately to be accepted by people that are clearly "Idiots"?

[Amaryl]

This really puzzles me.. If you don't believe in their views, why do you want to get married before a church? Civil marriage is the only one that's lawful.

They want the option. You see big flashy white weddings, with all the trimmings. They want that too, and I don't blame them. My mother hates Christians, yet she had a big white wedding in a church. If they let a woman like that in, they should let gay people in too. They're a lot nicer than my mother.

But you can have all that, just without the church. its about the party. and if its just about the party I would say it bloody inconsiderate of all the homosexuals to impose themselves and make the people you want a huge favour off, uncomfortable. I would consider couples Like that Assholes.

[Nithel]

This really puzzles me.. If you don't believe in their views, why do you want to get married before a church? Civil marriage is the only one that's lawful.

They want the option. You see big flashy white weddings, with all the trimmings. They want that too, and I don't blame them. My mother hates Christians, yet she had a big white wedding in a church. If they let a woman like that in, they should let gay people in too. They're a lot nicer than my mother.

I guess.. I'd just hold a civil marriage and a very big ceremony around it with a party and a white dress. (This is done by a lot of people who re-marry because the church usually doesn't allow divorce ever.)

Edit: Amaryl beat me to it and said what I wanted to say

[Seranita]

Hmm I think someone hass missed the point on what chapple white weddings mean now Most people see them as the ultimate romantic wedding very few people have church wedings for religious reasons anymore and those that do arnt as "white and flashy" as the romance ones If they wish for a white wedding.. let them the church is realy only a old stone building whatever meaning behind it is becoming less and less relevent these days as far as weddings are concerned

[Nithel]

I think someone has missed the point on what religion and a catholic wedding can still mean to some people and how for them it shouldn't become a friviolous symbol because it's purty.

That old stone building with no meaning behind it, still has meaning behind it for some people. And those people should be respected too.

[Chase - Esou]

Agreed 100 % with Amaryl. It's important to mention freedom of religion as well.

[Seranita]

yes that is true churches and chapels do have meaning to some people still I just try to stand back and take an open view on everything realy at the end of the day.. they are big iconic and romantic buildings wether one is religious or not they are the perfect venues for unions and In my opinion no one can be denied that you must also remamber that many of the transcripts and "laws" when it comes to religion stems from old laws from times gon by that are no longer relevent or hold weight in the modern world

[Amaryl]

yes that is true churches and chapels do have meaning to some people still I just try to stand back and take an open view on everything realy at the end of the day.. they are big iconic and romantic buildings wether one is religious or not they are the perfect venues for unions and In my opinion no one can be denied that you must also remamber that many of the transcripts and "laws" when it comes to religion stems from old laws from times gon by that are no longer relevent or hold weight in the modern world

If the owner of the building has a problem with it. You can't use it. Find somewhere else. A Church is not a Government decreed Public building.

[Seranita]

Hmm true

[Axio]

I still think that a central objective of this fight is that it's a valuable last stand against -real- discrimination too. What better way to fight it than striking at its very core?

[Amaryl]

I still think that a central objective of this fight is that it's a valuable last stand against -real- discrimination too. What better way to fight it than striking at its very core?

what do you mean?

[Seranita]

I understood discrimination in the workplace can now be faught with law.. on the streets.. in the servicies etc the only discrimination that remains is that from religions the only place left where it is not only fair bot godly right to deny certain groups of people the true humane treetments.. Like for example jehoves witnesses would not allow one of there own to have a blood transfusion even if it meant saving that persons life.. so strange and the doctors carnt do a thing about it yet elswhere they can as those that refuse a transfusion are usualy not sane so doctors use that to give treetment religion stops this

[Muzjhath]

I haven't followed the whole debate, but much of it.
Personally, I agree with Amaryl, if a person/organisation isn't Okay with homosexual weddings, they shouldn't have to preform cermonies for them.
Yet, when it comes to the bond itself, and everything it generally brings. (Shared possessions, children (adopted or otherwise), living on one economy even if there is two incomes) I think that the only organisation with the right to actually "proclaim" two people to be in such a full life partnership should either be the state, or the people themselves. Who then tell the state and apply for the propper rights (which is basicly the same thing but backwards).
Then they can choose to have a cermony or fuck what ever they want in what fashion they want. The priest/oman etc that they say their wows to or how they choose to do it just doesn't have any juridical power. Just the power to hold a cermony.

And yes, the reason many homosexuals want to be wedded in a church is due to tradition of their uppbringing.

[Sponsored content]