another step on the road to equality

mur'phon · 06-12-2008, 03:22 PM

Finaly, Norway has passed a law making all mariages equal in the eyes of the law. Personally I see this as good news, but I'm curious what you lot think.

Litofsky · 06-12-2008, 03:36 PM

Agreed. Why should the Government have any say as to how people should marry? This should be seen as a positive thing, mainly because it's an example of the government exerting less control on their people (although, that's an opinion). Of course, others might see this as a negative step, and I challenge them to provide evidence as to why their beliefs should be imposed upon any other person.

Inyri · 06-12-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

I challenge them to provide evidence as to why their beliefs should be imposed upon any other person.

Watch out, you're going to get people saying, "because I'm right."

In any case, it's not my (or anyone else's) place to tell anyone else how to live their lives. I can give them friendly suggestions (eg. don't smoke, your lungs will melt), but I don't really have a right to force someone to do things my way just because I think my way is better than theirs. I don't think anyone else, especially a governing body, has that right either, no matter what we might personally think or believe. How a person lives should be entirely up to that person, especially on important matters like who to spend their lives with. Why should we deny them happiness just because some people think it's 'wrong'? Happiness can be one of the most fleeting things there is -- people should be able to have as much of it as possible without others trying to take it away.

Arcesious · 06-12-2008, 04:21 PM

That's great news! Every step towards total equality and total human rights for all is worth it. Hopefully these steps forward in Norway and California will go a long way. Enough of this ignorant withholding of rights, right?

Ray Jones · 06-12-2008, 04:24 PM

You know now I feel offended and all discriminated because I am not married but want the same rights as married people.

Inyri · 06-12-2008, 04:25 PM

Which rights do you want that you think you don't have?

Totenkopf · 06-12-2008, 04:32 PM

Probably the right to formally pay alimony.

Ray Jones · 06-12-2008, 04:35 PM

Tax benefits, for instance. Or that god acknowledges my relationship as equal to those of married couples and not sinful. Etc.

Totenkopf · 06-12-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inyri

Watch out, you're going to get people saying, "because I'm right."

Well....that or what right do you have to impose your views on people who don't share them either.

@Ray--even if your type of relationship were civilly codified, you still wouldn't get around the problem of "sinful", that's a religious pov.

Inyri · 06-12-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Tax benefits, for instance. Or that god acknowledges my relationship as equal to those of married couples and not sinful. Etc.

I don't think God's in the legislature. Wouldn't be fair to put him on the ballot -- electioneering would be a given! But if I remember correctly, if you're 'together' long enough isn't it considered a commonlaw marriage?

EnderWiggin · 06-12-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcesious

That's great news! Every step towards total equality and total human rights for all is worth it. Hopefully these steps forward in Norway and California will go a long way. Enough of this ignorant withholding of rights, right?

Oh, so you're all for human rights now that we're in this thread, huh?

@Topic.

Good. Glad to see it. Voted Yes.

_EW_

Ray Jones · 06-12-2008, 05:18 PM

I'm just being PC and just and stuff. I don't want to discriminate any god by saying something like I'd care more about how some government headsman would classify my relationship. You know.

**jonathan7** · 06-12-2008, 05:28 PM

I have a query for you all: marriage is originally religious invention - the secular issue is that the government gives tax benefits to married people. Why not just have civil partnerships? (Its what our government here, to avoid the problems).

mur'phon · 06-12-2008, 05:33 PM

Because the government couldn't get a majoroty for doing so. Besides marriage in Norway essentially only means you have a right to inherrit your spouse, but since adoption agencies often requires people to be married.....

Arcesious · 06-12-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Oh, so you're all for human rights now that we're in this thread, huh?

Well, you convinced me in the other thread that I was wrong...

EnderWiggin · 06-12-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcesious

Well, you convinced me in the other thread that I was wrong...

I was just kidding around

No offense intended

_EW_

Web Rider · 06-12-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

I have a query for you all: marriage is originally religious invention....

And which religion do you give the credit of marriage to? Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Paganism? classic Greek/Roman "religion"? ancient Egyptian? Babylonian? Hammurabi? Mesopotamian? Aztec? Hindu? Shinto?

**jonathan7** · 06-12-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Web Rider

And which religion do you give the credit of marriage to? Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Paganism? classic Greek/Roman "religion"? ancient Egyptian? Babylonian? Hammurabi? Mesopotamian? Aztec? Hindu? Shinto?

I was careful in my statement to leave it open to them, neither did you answer the gist of my post; which was; have civil partnerships; they offer the same terms and it avoids most of the problems, with religious people moaning about marriage being eroded etc...

Or to pose the question differently, if someone isn't religious why get married?

Inyri · 06-12-2008, 05:59 PM

Maybe religious people should just accept that marriage is no longer a purely religious institution. Things change over time. Shock and awe.

**jonathan7** · 06-12-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inyri

Maybe religious people should just accept that marriage is no longer a purely religious institution. Things change over time. Shock and awe.

If people wish to get married that is their prerogative, though I think the civil partnership route is the one that makes the most sense for those who are not religious, if homosexual people want to get married that is their call, as long as no-religious people are forced to marry them, I wouldn't stick my nose in.

**Samuel Dravis** · 06-12-2008, 06:47 PM

Marriage is more than just a word. Just because it is very often religious in nature does not mean that the only reason people get married is for religious reasons. Were I offered a choice between a "marriage" and a "civil partnership", I would choose marriage-- because that would express both what I feel and what I intend far better than a simple "partnership."

*El Sitherino* · 06-12-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mur'phon

Finaly, Norway has passed a law making all mariages equal in the eyes of the law. Personally I see this as good news, but I'm curious what you lot think.

Why not? The only threat to marriage is divorce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

I have a query for you all: marriage is originally religious invention - the secular issue is that the government gives tax benefits to married people. Why not just have civil partnerships? (Its what our government here, to avoid the problems).

Marriage is not a religious institution. That it has it's own style of performance for a specific religion is however, not debatable.

Marriage is, and ultimately will always be, a social thing. Religion gets thrown in, as that's part of many peoples lives.

Web Rider · 06-12-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

I was careful in my statement to leave it open to them, neither did you answer the gist of my post; which was; have civil partnerships; they offer the same terms and it avoids most of the problems, with religious people moaning about marriage being eroded etc...

Or to pose the question differently, if someone isn't religious why get married?

Well, to be most accurate, while religion invented the more, "holy" aspects of religion, most of the other aspects of religion, such as making political partnerships and advancing one's lot in life, are very secular, about the only "religious" aspect of marriage is that "God" is supposedly involved.

Marriage has, in the past, been used for pretty much the same things "civil unions" are being used for. An advancement of one's own financial ends.

"civil partnerships" are fine in my book, as long as "marriage" is a religious only ceremony that has no legal standing, ie: fluff on a relationship. However, that does not change that classically, marriage has been used for the same things that people want to associate with "civil partnerships".