Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Your thoughts on gay rights?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedYour thoughts on gay rights?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 13>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 22:09
Well the thread brings together people who think people should be allowed to decide for themselves how they live, and people who think that not only does the universe itself have a moral code, but they know what it is. It's not a recipe for harmony.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 22:08
Edited

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - April 18 2012 at 08:04
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
colorofmoney91 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 22:05
Has this thread gotten hostile ye- *dodges airborn beer bottle*
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 22:02

Ivan, I read and understood Don Quixote perfectly well. Your little crying fit there won't change that. I was just having a go at you because I find you so absurd. Now perhaps we should stop talking to each other.

Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 21:53
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

And secondly, Don Quixote was delusional but I guess that might be apt given your magical sky friend...

Seems you haven't read Don Quixote (I read it three times)

While Sancho was ignorant but lucid, Don Quixote was delusional, but he had brightness and greatness in that delusion.

Sancho was superstitious and was full of proverbs Don Quixote despised superstition and  made mockery of the proverbs:

Quote “The foolish sayings of the rich pass for wise saws in society.
.

He was mad in matters of cavalry, but his wisdom and ingenious nature was intact.

This paragraph describes Don Quixote:

Quote "All the doctors and
clever scribes in the world will not make sense of the scrawl of his 
madness; he is a madman full of streaks, full of lucid intervals."

In those moments he was clever, and brilliant  as the name of the book suggests:  The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha.

You only captured the delusional moments of the madman, but never noticed his brightness, this proves you don't know 10% of what you believe you know, you are only rude and a bully.

Iván. 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 17 2012 at 22:05
            
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 21:52
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

This argument would be so much easier and non-existent if we just gave up the idea that marriage has to be part of the law. 

There are so many wrong things in this phrase . . . IDK where to start. Shocked

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I'm not sure why a marriage celebrated according to the religious beliefs of the couple should be any less valid than one sanctified by a civil servant. I would say in many cases the former might even have more validity since it was done according to the couple's deeper beliefs as opposed to being forced by local laws. In this case I like the rule described by Ivan in Peru. If I'm not wrong my country of origin has the same.

Most countries that use the Civil Law system have the religious marriage of any kind at least as equal to the civil marriage. Brasil was quite unique in this subject since up until the late 1950's ONLY the civil marriage was legal. Regardless of the way you choose to marry, you must bring the marriage certificate to the appropriate civil servant for it to be valid and, if not, your descendants may not have any right whatsoever to anything you or your current of previous "significant other" have.

In Brasil, that does not necessarily happens because inheritance is a fundamental human right and, for that, can not be deprived from anybody. In the US, however, due to the crazy Common Law + Civil Law system + the division of law-making between Municipalities, States and Union and the abyssal differences between states, I find it quite possible for somebody to lose their inheritance due to the lack of some certificate. 

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Also, as you know I'm pretty sure (knowing how my girl and I are) that I will spend the rest of my life with her. But we're still quite uncertain about asking Daddy State to bless the relationship and issue as a license (?!?). Only for inheritance issues (if I suddenly die in the future I want her to get eveything) but even that can be fixed with other documents.

IDK how the system works in the US nor the State where you live, Teo, but the lack of a marriage certificate can have far-reaching consequences in almost every serious country that I know of, being inheritance the most significant and lasting of those, since it will surpass and last way longer than your physical existence on Earth, but there are many more consequences that may turn your everyday life into a living hell.


Edited by CCVP - April 17 2012 at 21:56
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 14:34
im 100% pro. gay marriage.
We have a debate about it in Denmark right now, due to the government opening up for church marriage.
And even some more prominent bishop, agree to do gay marriage when the new laws go into effect.
 
But i cant understand why Gay's would wanna marriage, in a church, that have been supressing them for the last 1700 years or so. Life is strange ?
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
frippism View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 27 2010
Location: Tel Aviv
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 14:13
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

And secondly, Don Quixote was delusional but I guess that might be apt given your magical sky friend...

Honestly, Textbook, instead trying to shove your atheism into people's faces, and track a somewhat conservative stance held by Ivan here, straight to religion, perhaps try building an argument that isn't built upon constantly trying to disprove the existence of a deity.

Do I agree with Ivan? On this? Nope. 

I 99% agree with you- Not everything written in the bible is set in stone. It's thousands of years old and it's only natural for things to change. But to explain it in such a disgusting way?? I expected better. 

And yeah sorry for landing in this conversation out of nowhere.

And yeah, Gay Marriage all the way and sh*t. Why does anyone even remotely care anymore?!
There be dragons
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 13:21
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:


 
And I'm a little surprised by your last remark... A religious wedding without a civil paper being held as "legal wedding" after two years?? Confused This probably creates a lot of abuse
(unless I misunderstood you and then we have what the CPicard was talking about the PACS right that's fairly similar... but there must be an official declaration)
 

You partially misunderstood me:

  1. A religious wedding gives exactly the same rights before the law IMMEDIATELY, except of course the guy or the woman is married with another person before by the law or by another Church.
  2. Yhe free union of two persons without impediments without any marriage (civil or religious) creates the same effect as a marriage., it's called "Matrimonio de Hecho) or Marriage "De Facto", of course you need evidence, like witnesses, documents with address, etc.
  3. In the deep Andes there's a ceremony called "Sirvinacuy" (Marriage Test),  during which the couple lives together and if they like living together, they marry....If the couple making Sirvinacuy has no impediments to marry, the law accepts Sirvinacuy as a  marriage, in this case, the local authority is the witness.
Now, the child born with or without marriage and with or without impediments, has he same rights as the one born inside a marriage.

Our family Law is very advanced.

Iván

            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:41
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

However, I think codifying the responsibilities adults have toward children my still have functional value.


I agree with this, but it's a separate issue. As the law pertains now, it's very much already the case.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:39
Marriage is a cultural vestige. It was (and is, I suppose) a way to provide an enviroment for children to grow up. Typically the young couples weren't really quite ready to assume full adult roles at the time they got the process started. (And still today bodies are ready to bear children long before the minds are fully mature).
 
Like many cultural patterns that evolved over time, the behaviors were narrow and didn't allow alot of personal choice, but they were functional.
 
Mainly due to my discussions here, my attitude toward the law has changed. I automatically think that life should not be regulated unless it needs to be.
 
In an era where both males and females can support themselves financially, codifying how adults make bonds with each other is unnecessary.
 
However, I think codifying the responsibilities adults have toward children my still have functional value.
 
Unfortunately, this is not how things work right now.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:31
Also, as you know I'm pretty sure (knowing how my girl and I are) that I will spend the rest of my life with her. But we're still quite uncertain about asking Daddy State to bless the relationship and issue as a license (?!?). Only for inheritance issues (if I suddenly die in the future I want her to get eveything) but even that can be fixed with other documents.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:29
Well now we have Facebook who makes it official when we friend somebody
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:25
I find it to be ludicrous personally. It's a bond and promise between me and a person I love, but that means nothing until something fat attendant in a decrepit civil building notarizes a piece of paper?  It cheapens the entire thing. It's personal.

It's one of the things I think would be laughed at if we weren't so used to it. Should we need friend laws as well and a certification to show who we chose as our best friend?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:20
I'm not sure why a marriage celebrated according to the religious beliefs of the couple should be any less valid than one sanctified by a civil servant. I would say in many cases the former might even have more validity since it was done according to the couple's deeper beliefs as opposed to being forced by local laws. In this case I like the rule described by Ivan in Peru. If I'm not wrong my country of origin has the same.

Edited by The T - April 17 2012 at 09:22
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:10
This argument would be so much easier and non-existent if we just gave up the idea that marriage has to be part of the law. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20250
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 08:04
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Ivŕn buddy,
 
Are you not confusing civil marriage with religious marriage, in this issue? I don't favor gays trying to force the church gates open to wed, but they are indeed welcome in some countries to marry

No, I'm not confusing anything Sean, the Catholic Church will never admit gay marriage, no matter what the civil authorities say.
 
 
i'm not asking for churches or religions to agree on gay marriage... It's their full rights to refuse to wed gays in their premises - and I'm even against gays trying to force churches to marry them... let them do it civil or create gay religious sects in order to do it.
 
As an atheist, the only value I hold for marriages are civil weddings... The religious weddings have absolutely no legal value of any kind... At least in laďc countries... (Not sure Perů is "laďc"... I think so, but not sure)
 
 
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

How do you treat the people who are married only at city hall? It's perfectily legal, yet they've not gone to do that religiously

I know it's legal, hey, I'm a lawyer, and I had some divorce cases that the Church doesn't accept.

What I say is that the Church doesn't give a damn about civil marriage, if you want to register your kid in a Catholic School (for example), they ask for religious marriage only (Now they accept baptized kids even if their parents never married)..

BTW: At least in Perú, if you are married only by ANY Church or you prove that you live with a couple of the opposite sex for more than two years (if you are not previously married),  you have exactly the same rights as if you were married by a civil authority.
 
Iván
 
Yes, I hear you about churches not giving a damn about civil marriage (but they must recognize it, because it's legal), but the opposite is also true, and it's legal in Europe, North America and Australia-NZ... I can't think of an occidental country that would consider a religious marriage of a superior value than a civil wedding
 
And I'm a little surprised by your last remark... A religious wedding without a civil paper being held as "legal wedding" after two years?? Confused This probably creates a lot of abuse
(unless I misunderstood you and then we have what the CPicard was talking about the PACS right that's fairly similar... but there must be an official declaration)
 
 
 
 
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 07:44
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by VanderGraafKommandöh VanderGraafKommandöh wrote:

I don't need to know what religion is about to know it's not for me.
Okay, but then also don't make snarky off-topic comments in threads when you're not even correct...

Wow, so much truth.

Also, you are going to far on this and de-railing the thread discussing the origin of the prohibition of homosexual marriage in western society when, in fact, not a single human society has ever allowed any sort of homosexual marriage, even though many accepted homosexuals and homosexual relationships with more or less tolerance throughout history. 


Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 07:15
Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Did he just try to give us the etymology of the word matrimony as a reason why we can't now revise its definition?

In the words of bugs bunny, what a maroon.

The etymology is very important in this case, because our law is based in the Justinian Code and the Twelve Tables that defines marriage as the institution to protect the woman.

Matris: Mother
Munium: Care

The word defines the institution better than a thousand words.

You can check the Twelve Tables and the Justinian Code.

Being a Latin country with a Latin legal inheritance, most of the legal definitions are directly related to etymology, that's why we study Latin in order to understand better the basis of our law.

Call me a maroon as many times as you want, it's obvious you don't understand our sytem at all and the relation it has with the etymology of the institutions.

As Don Quixote said... Let the dogs bark Sancho, it's a sign that we keep advancing .

Iván






Sounds like a good reason to me. What's in a name anyway? A civil partnership is marriage in all but name.


Because 'Civil Partnership' deliberately deprives rights. You shouldn't have to compromise just because some badly manipulated scripture that politicians agree with says how you were born is wrong.
What rights does it deprive?
It doesn't matter what I believe anyway. Ivan did not state that homosexuals shoudn't marry, he was just explaining the roots of the problem in law. You're just having a cheap shot at him.


Edited by Snow Dog - April 17 2012 at 07:21
Back to Top
topographicbroadways View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2012 at 07:14
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Did he just try to give us the etymology of the word matrimony as a reason why we can't now revise its definition?

In the words of bugs bunny, what a maroon.

The etymology is very important in this case, because our law is based in the Justinian Code and the Twelve Tables that defines marriage as the institution to protect the woman.

Matris: Mother
Munium: Care

The word defines the institution better than a thousand words.

You can check the Twelve Tables and the Justinian Code.

Being a Latin country with a Latin legal inheritance, most of the legal definitions are directly related to etymology, that's why we study Latin in order to understand better the basis of our law.

Call me a maroon as many times as you want, it's obvious you don't understand our sytem at all and the relation it has with the etymology of the institutions.

As Don Quixote said... Let the dogs bark Sancho, it's a sign that we keep advancing .

Iván






Sounds like a good reason to me. What's in a name anyway? A civil partnership is marriage in all but name.


Because 'Civil Partnership' deliberately deprives rights. You shouldn't have to compromise just because some badly manipulated scripture that politicians agree with says how you were born is wrong.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.