Discrimination
Jul 31, 2003
As with all matters of religion, I don't care a whole lot about marriage. I wouldn't mind getting married one day, but I wouldn't object to not getting married either. It certainly isn't something that I need to do to please -- or adhere to the rules of -- an omnipotent deity in the sky. I'm also fairly certain that the ritual itself will have no fundamental impact on my love for my wife-to-be.
Someone who does think this marriage thing is pretty important, and immutable, is the notorious shit-for-brains and anti-christ himself, George W. Bush:
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that." George W. Bush
Should same-sex marriage, which by definition doesn't affect anyone else but the two involved, be illegal because George W. Bush "believes" that it should require opposite sexes in the two people involved?
What if Bush believed that "marriage is between whites"? Oh, yeah, racial discrimination is illegal. I forgot.
In discussions regarding Bush's favorite hobby -- killing people and bombing countries -- it is often discussed wether Bush has a very low level of intelligence, or if he is just evil. I'm pretty sure he is evil, but I've pondered the question if Bush Jr, other than being satan's offspring, is also remarkaby thick-headed.
The obvious question is then if Bush is saying this -- trying to legislate this -- out of spite for homosexual couples, or out of striking stupidity? I guess this could also be just another minor but nevertheless important operation in Bush's plan to completely rid the US of civil liberties; all in the name of Freedom and Peace, of course.
I guess it is also possible that me being raised and living in a modern country like Sweden -- which considers marriage between two people the matter, and the matter alone, of the two people involved -- has clouded my mind from comprehending the self-evident legitimacy of discrimination based on sexual preference?
Maybe if I wasn't so indoctrinated with Swedish ways, I too would understand that discrimination based on sexual preference is and should be legit? For instance, maybe the owner of a gas station, coffee shop or grocery store, should be able to put up a sign saying "No Fags" next to the ones saying "No Niggers" and "No Jews"?
Oops, strike that last part, discrimination pertaining to race or religion is illegal, my mistake.
Comments
Marriage may not seem like much to some, but to me it has a lot of significance.
I know since my wife was 4 years old, she was planning the perfect wedding for her and her husband.
Part of being married is publicly stating that you are committed to each other. Saying that "even though times get tough, I will still stand by you, till death do us part".
Of course, society of late has trounced all over this idea, and with the skyrocketing divorce rate has basically stated that marriage is just a word, not really a reality. How silly of us though to accept what the majority does as a rule.
Feelings of love will fade with time, no matter how much you believe they will not. It is a commitment to love that lasts, and it helps to remember being in front of your friends, family, spouse, and God stating that you are going to do your best to make this relationship work.
Comment by Doug at 15:03, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Doug:
Marriage is a (but not the) way of saying "even though times get tough, I will still stand by you, till death do us part".
Other people say it in different ways. Some people just do it instead. My own folks have been happily not-married since they were in their teens.
Simply put, marriage is whatever you want it to be, but certainly not required or necessary, any way you want to put it.
Comment by Tomas at 15:12, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Regardless of how you personally feel about the meaning and significance of marriage, there are certain legal rights that come with the marriage. Denying these legal rights to a same-sex couple based on a religious definition of marriage is discrimination, and violates the separation of church and state.
Comment by Andy Baio at 15:25, 31 Jul, 2003 #
So would you say that a 65 year old should be given the right to marry a 3 year old because it is his sexual preference?
Comment by Doug at 16:45, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Doug: So you're saying that homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia? So you're saying that a three year old child with absolutely no idea of what the implications of "I do" are (if he or she can even say it) is the same thing as a consenting adult?
Please keep the level of the discussion a wee bit higher than that, thanks.
Comment by Tomas at 17:01, 31 Jul, 2003 #
No I am not comparing them, and no a 3 year old is not the same thing as an adult.
But what are the merit's of sexual preference? Does having a certain "preference" grant me the right to marriage?
Comment by Doug at 17:17, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Doug: "Does having a certain "preference" grant me the right to marriage?"
Not in Sweden. But yes, in the US you have to be heterosexual (same-sex marriages are not legal).
Comment by Tomas at 17:20, 31 Jul, 2003 #
I was under the impression that only one country in the world allows same-sex marriages, and that is the Netherlands. Most countries have come up with a new relationship model called a "union" or something similar, which states like Vermont, actually recognize.
Comment by Doug at 17:34, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Doug:
You were under the wrong impression, several countries do.
Comment by Tomas at 17:36, 31 Jul, 2003 #
When I say "most countries" I am referring to exclusivly to countries that have begun to establish these laws at all which is mostly Europe Canada and the US.
Comment by Doug at 17:38, 31 Jul, 2003 #
I would like to see your proof of this...
Read this article...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/127105_marriage18.html
At the top, it says THIRD COUNTRY...
Comment by Doug at 17:39, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Here
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar4.htm
Comment by Doug at 17:41, 31 Jul, 2003 #
So in truth, even Sweden does not recognize a same-sex "marriage", they are "registered partnerships".
Comment by Doug at 17:52, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Doug:
In Sweden "marriage" is not a Christanity specific ritual.
I don't know the defining rules of all countries, but in Sweden homosexual couples are not yet allowed to marry in a Christian church. The reason for which is freedom of religion, I suppose. That rule is being heavily discussed within the Christian church.
Unfortunately, religion is mutually exclusive with common sense, here too.
Obviously, the most important part is that adults are granted the same legal rights, and responsibilities, regardless of their sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity or favorite color.
Comment by Tomas at 17:58, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Agreed.
Comment by Doug at 17:59, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Have "most countries" (same definition as you used) really "come up with" civil unions in light of demands for same-sex weddings? AFAIK, civil unions/marriages are a secular alternative to Christian marriage in all countries which have separated church from state?
(Hmm, except in the US. Other countries?)
Comment by Tomas at 18:03, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Yes. Most countries have adopted Civil Unions as their definition for a same-sex marraige. But most of these countries still do not give the same benefits to the two distinctions. I don't think any countries allow same-sex couples to adopt a child.
When you consider that there are more than 150 countries in the world, there are only a very minimal that have begun any legislation on this.
The islamic religion is much harder on such issues.
Comment by Doug at 18:14, 31 Jul, 2003 #
Tomas: On getting back to the issue with Bush Jr. Why are you surprised? He's a strong, devoted conservative with a background in the american, christian church. He's opposed everything he finds goes against the saying of the Bible (interpreted with the famous conservative touch). Thus, he's against homo-marriages, abortion and many other things that we in a secularized country like Sweden can't understand.
The problem, as I see it, is that Bush Jr. almost has it in his power to change the legislation. That he's against homo-marriages is one thing; that he might be able to press down his opinions in written law is much worse.
Comment by the skeptic (skeptikern) at 19:55, 01 Aug, 2003 #
Talisyn: Nothing about Bush surprises me anymore. But, if I only wrote about things that surprises me, this place would be dead quiet.
Comment by Tomas at 20:08, 01 Aug, 2003 #
Tomas: LOL, true. =)
Comment by the skeptic (skeptikern) at 12:21, 02 Aug, 2003 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.