Haggis@wk wrote:Really? source?
Moderator: Nicole Marie
Shapley wrote:Community property can be taken care with such things as a will, which even married couples should have.
Shapley wrote:I do not, even with the rapid advances of science we have today, see any possiblility that same-sex couples will be able to produce their own biological offspring.
Shapley wrote:The question arises whether or not those churches which cannot, as a matter of faith, accept (and perform) same-sex marriages will be guilty of discrimination under the law, if such unions are legalized. Some legal scholars have said 'yes', which leads some of the oppositon to the legalization of such unions by the churches.
Shapley wrote:If the answer is, indeed, 'yes', then they are very clearly imposing their morality on the rest of us, by attempting to use the legal system to alter the tenets of religious faith.
Shapley wrote:If, however, they attempt to legislated that we have to call them that also, then they are attempting to impose their morality on us all.
Shapley wrote:Marriage exists as a religious institution for certain purposes, and as a legal instutition for others. The government does, however, place restrictions and requirements on the religious instutition to bring into into compliance with the legal one. Blood test requiremetns, legal reporting requirements, licensing, etc., all are legal restrictions imposed on the religious community regarding marriage.
Shapley wrote:I do not, even with the rapid advances of science we have today, see any possiblility that same-sex couples will be able to produce their own biological offspring
And why would marriage of any kind require the production or acquisition of children anyway?
Shapley wrote:The impact of marriage on childbearing has nothing to do with childrearing ability, it has to do with legitimization of offspring.
Shapley wrote:I personally don't care whether or not gay couples 'marry', but I do care if someone says that the Catholic church has to marry them, or has to accept them as married, since it goes against the teachings of the Church. That concern extends to Catholic schools, BTW.
Then why are you opposed to law allowing samesex marriages?
Shapley wrote:I've said I don't care as long as I'm not required to acknowledge the validity of the such unions in anything other than a strictly legal sense.
Shapley wrote:But there are currently no laws that define discrimination with regards to marriage, at least none that I am aware of.
Shapley wrote:As I mentioned earlier - what about 'common law' marriages? How long does an opposite sex couple live together before being defined as a 'common law' husband and wife? Would we apply the same rules to same-sex couples, or would we need an affidavit testifying to consummation? Or would we simply eliminate the concept of 'common law' marriage altogether to make it simple?
Shapley wrote:I've never supported the idea of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, although I understand the reasoning behind it.
Shapley wrote:I consider marriage, in as much as it needs to be a government issue, to be a State government issue, not a Federal one.
Shapley wrote:I, myself, like the Constitution just the way it is written, and wish we would worry more about applying it than changing it. I don't mind an amendment every now and then, if it is really needed (and I would strongly favour one giving the Senate back to the States), but I don't think marriage is an area where such tinkering is justified.
Shapley wrote:When I was growing up we used to have a saying. "You don't have to make a Federal case out of it." It was a way of saying that some things are too small or petty for the whole weight of governmental power to be employed in solving it.
OperaTenor wrote:I liked this thread a lot better when it was about antineutrinos...
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]