South Africa legalizes gay marriage

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Marriage is a church institution.

Then why should the government recognize them? Why should a government have ANYTHING to do with them? Why should they give tax breaks for it?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Then why should the government recognize them? Why should a government have ANYTHING to do with them? Why should they give tax breaks for it?

Perhaps as an incentive? They don't necessarily have to, they just do. I suspect they understand the value of a good family too.

Perhaps the same reason they offer tax breaks for purchasing a hybrid vehicle; because it's good to do.

[Diamond Cross]

So why should married couple be given tax breaks tghat singles and non-married couples don't qualify for?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So why should married couple be given tax breaks tghat singles and non-married couples don't qualify for?

Perhaps as an incentive? They don't necessarily have to, they just do. I suspect they understand the value of a good family too.

Perhaps the same reason they offer tax breaks for purchasing a hybrid vehicle; because it's good to do.

[Diamond Cross]

No it's not a good thing to do if discrimination is involved, which you didn't really address.

[motivez]

Marriage is not a church institution in terms of the government's involvement.

Once again, there's a distinction between the religious/spiritual aspect and the legal contract aspect.

The government should only be concerned about the legal contract aspect that grants rights to individuals, not the religious dogma that seeks to deny people equal rights.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Marriage is not a right.

Neither is having a drivers license. However, the government cannot discriminate against people for their sexuality, race, religious beliefs, etc.. when licensing people to drive.

A marriage license is no different.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Neither is having a drivers license. However, the government cannot discriminate against people for their sexuality, race, religious beliefs, etc.. when licensing people to drive.

They certainly discriminate upon their ability.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

They certainly discriminate upon their ability.

Are you suggesting gay people aren't capable of committing to each other the same way that straight people are?

I don't buy that for a second.. I have several gay friends who are in long term relationships right now..

[Thomas Crown]

I could really care less about gay marriage.

Why is it majority rule only matters when it is something you agree with? This is not a matter of a basic human right to freedom so the slavery argument has no strength here.

Also, "gay marriage" is only a progressive concept for those that don't believe that it is a sin or even unnatural, which is a minority in this country. For the rest, it is a negative thing. Forcing something that the vast majority of the country feels is a negative thing isn't good.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

I could really care less about gay marriage.

Why is it majority rule only matters when it is something you agree with? This is not a matter of a basic human right to freedom so the slavery argument has no strength here.

Also, "gay marriage" is only a progressive concept for those that don't believe that it is a sin or even unnatural, which is a minority in this country. For the rest, it is a negative thing. Forcing something that the vast majority of the country feels is a negative thing isn't good.

what does preventing two people from entering a contract on their own hurt others if they just happen to not like the contract?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

I could really care less about gay marriage.

Why is it majority rule only matters when it is something you agree with? This is not a matter of a basic human right to freedom so the slavery argument has no strength here.

Also, "gay marriage" is only a progressive concept for those that don't believe that it is a sin or even unnatural, which is a minority in this country. For the rest, it is a negative thing. Forcing something that the vast majority of the country feels is a negative thing isn't good.

A vast majority at one point also thought that peeing next to black people or drinking from the same water fountain was disgusting. Just because it is the majority feeling doesn't always make it correct. Tolerating intolerance is not a good policy to have in the land of the free and home of the brave.

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by hsmith

what does preventing two people from entering a contract on their own hurt others if they just happen to not like the contract?

Does it actually hurt anyone? I don't think so. But I don't have the right or the power to tell someone that their morals are wrong or their faith is wrong.

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

A vast majority at one point also thought that peeing next to black people or drinking from the same water fountain was disgusting. Just because it is the majority feeling doesn't always make it correct. Tolerating intolerance is not a good policy to have in the land of the free and home of the brave.

The race card doesn't hold water here. Drawing this parallel is eroneous.

[CrackSeed]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

The race card doesn't hold water here. Drawing this parallel is eroneous.

Please explain.

...sounds like a legitimate comparison to me...

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

The race card doesn't hold water here. Drawing this parallel is eroneous.

Its not about race it is about seperating people for being "different" by not allowing them to do the same things as everyone else.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

Does it actually hurt anyone? I don't think so. But I don't have the right or the power to tell someone that their morals are wrong or their faith is wrong.

it hurts the two people who want to enter into the contract

apparently you do have that "right" because you are using some silly concept of "sin" as a reason to bar others from entering into a legally binding agreement.

[Thomas Crown]

*I'm* not using sin as a reason. I am saying that the vast majority of the country believes that if it is a sin, it shouldn't be made legal.

I'd like to pose a question:
What is wrong with civil unions and then marrying in a church that does not exclude gay marriage (for those who want the religious part)?

If it extends the same rights, allowances, exceptions etc, what is wrong with it? It *IS* different, so calling it by a different name isn't really a bad thing (unless you live and die by political correctness).

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

*I'm* not using sin as a reason. I am saying that the vast majority of the country believes that if it is a sin, it shouldn't be made legal.

What right to the have to legislate morality based on religious belief though? Calling it a 'sin' links it with religion.

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

I'd like to pose a question:
What is wrong with civil unions and then marrying in a church that does not exclude gay marriage (for those who want the religious part)?

If it extends the same rights, allowances, exceptions etc, what is wrong with it? It *IS* different, so calling it by a different name isn't really a bad thing (unless you live and die by political correctness).

There's no reason to have different names for it if it accomplishes the same task, other than pandering to a bunch of religious zealots and their belief that they own the definition of the word..

The government has no business dealing with religion like that..

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by hsmith

You are still denying someone freedom.

Which freedom ? A gay couple can get married anytime they want, the only thing that is denied is the govt recognition.