Religion and Gay Marriages

[LadyTevar]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/06/17/ ... index.html

I've always been neutral on the subject of gay marriages, but I still think punishing a minister for it is wrong. What do guys think?

[jegs2]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/06/17/ ... index.html

I've always been neutral on the subject of gay marriages, but I still think punishing a minister for it is wrong. What do guys think?

If he has sworn to follow the precepts of the Bible and Presbyterian doctrine, then he is wrong. He is free to break off from the church and practice whatever he believes. That being said, he does belong to the PCUS, which is a very liberal branch of the Presbyterian church, so I'm a bit surprised they're raising a stink about it...

[kojikun]

i dont think marriage is worth anything, but im tempted to become an ordained minister of the ULC and marry a whole bunch of gay people.

[Andrew J.]

i dont think marriage is worth anything, but im tempted to become an ordained minister of the ULC and marry a whole bunch of gay people.

How would that help you? I mean, you'd have to become some sort of super-liberal Mormon to marry that many peo- oh, wait, wrong version of "to marry." Sorry.

[kojikun]

How would that help you? I mean, you'd have to become some sort of super-liberal Mormon to marry that many peo- oh, wait, wrong version of "to marry." Sorry.

No no, right version. ULC doesnt care. ::snicker::

[LadyTevar]

i dont think marriage is worth anything... (Snip)

Well... in WV at least, it gives a married wo/man the right to half of all monies, property, and goods obtained during the marriage, no matter whose name the items were purchased in or paycheck made out to.

In case of death, the husband/wife is granted insurance payments or other death benefits, as well as being able to transfer property held by the deceased over to themselves.

At this time, since WV doesn't acknowledge same-sex marriages, if one partner dies, the other gets nothing. Everything goes to the closest relative, who may or may not have even spoken to the deceased after s/he 'came out'. This is one reason why I would support a same-sex marriage bill, or something that would allow the "life-partner" to have the same rights as traditional married couple.

There's been several cases like this all across the country, even "Law&Order" had a brief jab at it in this season, with the cops accosting a young man with killing his partner, and the young man mourning because he went to all that trouble to kill his partner only to find out that in NY their marriage wasn't recognized and he couldn't claim the life insurance.

[kojikun]

Well... in WV at least, it gives a married wo/man the right to half of all monies, property, and goods obtained during the marriage, no matter whose name the items were purchased in or paycheck made out to. [snip]

I mean as a ritual. It's more to bind two people together by a difficult legal process then it is to proove they love one another. Honestly, if you love one another, you don't need to prove it, you should be able to stay together for however long it takes you to not love one another without legal or religious help. And when you don't like each other anymore, it prevents you from actually being happier by leaving the other person. And if you say "but the children!" well, thats what child support (and condoms!) are for.

[LadyTevar]

Well... in WV at least, it gives a married wo/man the right to half of all monies, property, and goods obtained during the marriage, no matter whose name the items were purchased in or paycheck made out to. [snip]

(snip)
And when you don't like each other anymore, it prevents you from actually being happier by leaving the other person. And if you say "but the children!" well, thats what child support (and condoms!) are for.

But what about the car? The camping equipment? The joint bank account?

Been there, done that.. the ex did his best to keep me from retrieving my belongings from the house. Having a nut chasing you off with a sword will keep you away......

[Alyrium Denryle]

He chased you with a sword?

Um....

The problem is that without a legal agreement, what happens if one of you dies?

I personally dont want my belongings going to someone on my fathers side of the family, they fucking disowned me....

[kojikun]

But what about the car? The camping equipment? The joint bank account?

Cut them all in half! evenly divide them as best as possible, make an arrangement for things that cant be divided.

Been there, done that.. the ex did his best to keep me from retrieving my belongings from the house. Having a nut chasing you off with a sword will keep you away......

Thats what shotguns are for.

[LadyTevar]

He chased you with a sword?

Um....

The problem is that without a legal agreement, what happens if one of you dies?

I personally dont want my belongings going to someone on my fathers side of the family, they fucking disowned me....

Yes, he chased me off with a sword. It was not an amnical divorce. He fought me over every possession we held.

[Alyrium Denryle]

...yeah...the hostile divorce is evident

[Sindai]

He chased you with a sword?

Um....

The problem is that without a legal agreement, what happens if one of you dies?

I personally dont want my belongings going to someone on my fathers side of the family, they fucking disowned me....

That's what legal wills are for. So long as you have one, your belongings go to whoever you say they do.

[LadyTevar]

He chased you with a sword?

Um....

The problem is that without a legal agreement, what happens if one of you dies?

I personally dont want my belongings going to someone on my fathers side of the family, they fucking disowned me....

That's what legal wills are for. So long as you have one, your belongings go to whoever you say they do.

Yet how many people who die young have wills? I don't. Most people don't even consider having a will drawn up until their 60's.

[Kuroneko]

Yet how many people who die young have wills? I don't. Most people don't even consider having a will drawn up until their 60's.

If the distribution of your belongings after your death is a concern to you, you should have a will. It's as simple as that. Whether or not other people in your agegroup have them is irrelevant; it just shows that they do not consider it significant.

[Darth Wong]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/06/17/ ... index.html

I've always been neutral on the subject of gay marriages, but I still think punishing a minister for it is wrong. What do guys think?

The United Church here in Canada ordains gay and lesbian ministers. They have taken the position that the Bible discourages homosexuality, but it also discourages heterosexuality (according to Paul, anything but celibacy is less than ideal), so they are hypocrites to pass judgement on homosexuals.

Also, the Ontario Court of Appeals has ruled that the exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage is unconstitutional, so the Ontario courts are now recognizing homosexual marriages. Numerous homosexual marriages have already been performed, although Ralph Klein in Alberta (a midwestern province which has been nicknamed "Texas North") has vowed to use a rarely employed clause in the Constitution to get an exemption and ignore this ruling.

[Darth Wong]

Yet how many people who die young have wills? I don't. Most people don't even consider having a will drawn up until their 60's.

If the distribution of your belongings after your death is a concern to you, you should have a will. It's as simple as that. Whether or not other people in your agegroup have them is irrelevant; it just shows that they do not consider it significant.

At the risk of sounding like an insurance salesman, life insurance proceeds go directly into the beneficiary's estate and bypass all government estate regulations. This means that a person with a hefty life insurance policy can provide for his loved ones without having a will (even a written will can be contested, after all).

[Kuroneko]

[At the risk of sounding like an insurance salesman, life insurance proceeds go directly into the beneficiary's estate and bypass all government estate regulations. This means that a person with a hefty life insurance policy can provide for his loved ones without having a will (even a written will can be contested, after all).

Quite right. But there are some caveats: you cannot be the beneficiary owner of that life insurance. That means 1) you cannot cancel the life insurance, and 2) you cannot change the beneficiary of the life insurance. If you can do either, you are considered the beneficiary owner and the life insurance is considered part of your estate (and is therefore taxable upon your death). At least that's how I understand U.S. life insurance laws to be.

Edit: Almost forgot--I think spouses are exempt tax either way, up to some monetary limit. (Since I'm not married, I forgot this clause.)

[Saurencaerthai]

I applaud his efforts and full support him for his continuation of these marriages.

[Slartibartfast]

i dont think marriage is worth anything... (Snip)

Well... in WV at least, it gives a married wo/man the right to half of all monies, property, and goods obtained during the marriage, no matter whose name the items were purchased in or paycheck made out to.

In case of death, the husband/wife is granted insurance payments or other death benefits, as well as being able to transfer property held by the deceased over to themselves.

At this time, since WV doesn't acknowledge same-sex marriages, if one partner dies, the other gets nothing. Everything goes to the closest relative, who may or may not have even spoken to the deceased after s/he 'came out'. This is one reason why I would support a same-sex marriage bill, or something that would allow the "life-partner" to have the same rights as traditional married couple.

There's been several cases like this all across the country, even "Law&Order" had a brief jab at it in this season, with the cops accosting a young man with killing his partner, and the young man mourning because he went to all that trouble to kill his partner only to find out that in NY their marriage wasn't recognized and he couldn't claim the life insurance.

But the minister was performing the religious ritual of marriage (under God and all that shit), right? It would make sense if his congregation doesn't accept it, that he would be punished - priests have wacky rules anyway, so who cares.

What you want is the civil part of the marriage, the one where you need a witness and to sign in some book and stuff like that. Normally when you have a religious marriage you have the priest marry you and then you have the civil part.

The state should allow it, but it would be strange for a catholic or christian congregation that thinks being gay is a deadly sin, to marry a gay couple.

[Sobbastchianno]

Lady Tevar makes some excellent points. While yes, a will can do the job (though, it is subject to be contested), it costs significantly more to draw up a will, than it does to sign a marriage certificate, which actually gives better protection than a will because it is not contestable.

Secondly, spouses are NOT subject to tax on the first $64,000 (it may be higher) of life insurance nor is a spouse subject to inheritance tax on real property. All property automatically reverts to the spouse, and the biological family of the deceased can not do a damn thing about it.

It is estimated to take anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000 to draw up all the legal papers, such as powers of attorney, medical powers of attorney, wills, joint tenancy documents, etc, that will afford only SOME of the protections that a $40.00 marriage license provides.

And yes, legal marriage will make divorce for same sex couples a reality, which mean equitable division of the marital estate and not some vindictive, hurt ex saying, "It was all mine, he owns nothing here," when the stereo, entertainment center, bed, and cookware may well be his lover's property. Get the drift?

With the 1969 case of Loving vs. Virginia, the case which ended all racial restrictions on marriage, the Supreme Court stated in its argument that marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT. We, as a country, gripe at other countries who have lousy civil rights records, but don't look at our own. With that ruling, it is very obvious that not all US citizens are afforded their full civil rights, since we don't have same-sex marriage.

[Gil Hamilton]

If he has sworn to follow the precepts of the Bible and Presbyterian doctrine, then he is wrong. He is free to break off from the church and practice whatever he believes. That being said, he does belong to the PCUS, which is a very liberal branch of the Presbyterian church, so I'm a bit surprised they're raising a stink about it...

I've got a stupid question. Is there any actual passage that says that gays can't marry? I know there are plenty that poo poo homosexuality in general, but I don't recall any forbidding marriage.

[Sobbastchianno]

Gil Hamilton: I've got a stupid question. Is there any actual passage that says that gays can't marry? I know there are plenty that poo poo homosexuality in general, but I don't recall any forbidding marriage.

Gil, actually, there are only six verses in The Bible (NIV) dealing with homosexuality (and knowing Hebrew as I do, I can strike all six down), but there are 635 admonishments to heterosexuals about their sexual behavior. I don't think that God dislikes homosexuals, I just believe he felt heterosexuals needed more guidance.

No, there is NOTHING in the Bible stating homosexuals can't marry. Then again, homosexual wasn't even a word until the 19th century. Not in any language, Greek, Hebrew, or Latin is there a word for homosexual. There are word for homosexual acts, but all of these words pertain to the acts as committed in Pegan ritual of the day.

[Gil Hamilton]

Thanks for the info. So if the Bible is the ultimate authority and it doesn't actually forbid it, what is the problem?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thanks for the info. So if the Bible is the ultimate authority and it doesn't actually forbid it, what is the problem?

Purely socio-economic. The crackdown on homosexuality by the church didn't start--short of some Church Fathers who railed against all forms of sex and thought that celibacy was just great, but had no influence on policy--until after the collapse of the Roman Empire. A while after it, in fact. After the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and following the Treaty of Verdun that divided it into three Kingdoms.

In this period, civilization in Europe began to recover from the slump that had been caused by the barbarian invasions. The construction of cities in Northern Europe started on a large scale. There was a need for population growth to recover from the massive depopulation that had accompanied the fall of the Roman Empire. There was also fears in the populace over the concentration of the power of the Church in the hands of the nobility, and the licentious behaviour of the monasteries that were basically club-houses for noble excess.

The response was a steady centralization of Church power, with the moral and temporal laws to match, which, of course, was met in short order by efforts of the nobility to centralize their own power-bases and reestablish an efficient bureaucracy. In all cases, moral standards had to be established which involved the production of more peasants to bring land under cultivation, and to be used as weapons, not so much instruments of genuine belief, to coerce centres of power (such as monasteries) to fall into line.

I'd say that homosexuality as a totally restricted behaviour was not a firm concept in western culture until the 10th or 11th centuries, and before then was rather common, straight through into the Christian era.