Dubstepforum.com

JBoy wrote:Im pretty sure the term 'marriage' or at least the true meaning of it was around long before christianity put its unique brand on it.

I made the mistake of naming Christianity earlier, I meant whatever religion people are affiliated with.

nowaysj wrote:Terpit, what country are you from?

England, but lived in the middle east since 98

marriage is a civil contract regulated by the union.
here in brazil we have an institute called stable communion. If two people live together bound by love or have a child together or share patrimony, it has the same value of a marriage. the heritage was limited by the will, although some couples, through the legal system, got around that issue.
is it a valid alternative for same sex marriage? yes. but the point is, we can't let religion rule over civil interests while having to create redundant equivalents that only inflate the legal system. Don't forget that the same churches that condemn gay marriage also patronized slavery and slaughter as a way of salvation.

edit: grammar

Hircine wrote:marriage is a civil contract regulated by the union.
here in brazil we have an institute called stable communion. If two people live together bound by love or have a child together or share patrimony, it has the same value of a marriage. the heritage was limited by the will, although some couples, through the legal system, got around that issue.
is it a valid alternative for same sex marriage? yes. but the point is, we can't let religion rule over civil interests while having to create redundant equivalents that only inflate the legal system. Don't forget that the same churches that condemn gay marriage also patronized slavery and slaughter as a way of salvation.

edit: grammar

I'm not pro religion in any way shape or form, I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body' theforethe should be an equivalent. Not sure why you used the word redundant.

i think we should all just fuck, u guys down?

Terpit wrote:

Hircine wrote:marriage is a civil contract regulated by the union.
here in brazil we have an institute called stable communion. If two people live together bound by love or have a child together or share patrimony, it has the same value of a marriage. the heritage was limited by the will, although some couples, through the legal system, got around that issue.
is it a valid alternative for same sex marriage? yes. but the point is, we can't let religion rule over civil interests while having to create redundant equivalents that only inflate the legal system. Don't forget that the same churches that condemn gay marriage also patronized slavery and slaughter as a way of salvation.

edit: grammar

I'm not pro religion in any way shape or form, I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body' theforethe should be an equivalent. Not sure why you used the word redundant.

if we have an institute that allows two people to live together as a family and share patrimony, why would we need an equivalent that only applies to a specific group? that's playing politics with the law, being redundant and also is against isonomy, everyone is equal to the eyes of the legal system anyways.

garethom wrote:i think we should all just fuck, u guys down?

let's go!

Terpit wrote: I'm not pro religion in any way shape or form, I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body' theforethe should be an equivalent. Not sure why you used the word redundant.

Yet you've been repeatedly informed that people can get married with no religious ceremony. The state is the governing body not the church.

also please remember that I study, operate and live under a different law system than yours, just giving my 2 cents. no hate.

Terpit wrote:I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body'

Where did you get this idea from?

Hircine wrote:

Terpit wrote:

Hircine wrote:marriage is a civil contract regulated by the union.
here in brazil we have an institute called stable communion. If two people live together bound by love or have a child together or share patrimony, it has the same value of a marriage. the heritage was limited by the will, although some couples, through the legal system, got around that issue.
is it a valid alternative for same sex marriage? yes. but the point is, we can't let religion rule over civil interests while having to create redundant equivalents that only inflate the legal system. Don't forget that the same churches that condemn gay marriage also patronized slavery and slaughter as a way of salvation.

edit: grammar

I'm not pro religion in any way shape or form, I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body' theforethe should be an equivalent. Not sure why you used the word redundant.

if we have an institute that allows two people to live together as a family and share patrimony, why would we need an equivalent that only applies to a specific group? that's playing politics with the law, being redundant and also is against isonomy, everyone is equal to the eyes of the legal system anyways.

Because, history/culture/old fashioned values. 'traditional couples' arent gonnastop what theyve been doing for all this time even if there is a new totally rad version of 'marriage', fuck it, leave them to it. Having an equivalent won't do many harm, itll just keep the religious nutcases at bay and happy.

Terpit wrote:

Hircine wrote:

Terpit wrote:

Hircine wrote:marriage is a civil contract regulated by the union.
here in brazil we have an institute called stable communion. If two people live together bound by love or have a child together or share patrimony, it has the same value of a marriage. the heritage was limited by the will, although some couples, through the legal system, got around that issue.
is it a valid alternative for same sex marriage? yes. but the point is, we can't let religion rule over civil interests while having to create redundant equivalents that only inflate the legal system. Don't forget that the same churches that condemn gay marriage also patronized slavery and slaughter as a way of salvation.

edit: grammar

I'm not pro religion in any way shape or form, I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body' theforethe should be an equivalent. Not sure why you used the word redundant.

if we have an institute that allows two people to live together as a family and share patrimony, why would we need an equivalent that only applies to a specific group? that's playing politics with the law, being redundant and also is against isonomy, everyone is equal to the eyes of the legal system anyways.

Because, history/culture/old fashioned values. 'traditional couples' arent gonnastop what theyve been doing for all this time even if there is a new totally rad version of 'marriage', fuck it, leave them to it. Having an equivalent won't do many harm, itll just keep the religious nutcases at bay and happy.

I see, it's not only government's job to keep christians happy, but to dictate culture.

nowaysj wrote:

Terpit wrote:I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body'

Where did you get this idea from?

Well before today, I wanst aware that marriages outside of religious buildings that weren't religious ceremonies were considered as marriage, I thought they were a legal equivalent. However I've been proven wrong. I guess living in an completely different society changes perceptions as well.

Genevieve wrote:

Terpit wrote:

Hircine wrote:

Terpit wrote:

Hircine wrote:marriage is a civil contract regulated by the union.
here in brazil we have an institute called stable communion. If two people live together bound by love or have a child together or share patrimony, it has the same value of a marriage. the heritage was limited by the will, although some couples, through the legal system, got around that issue.
is it a valid alternative for same sex marriage? yes. but the point is, we can't let religion rule over civil interests while having to create redundant equivalents that only inflate the legal system. Don't forget that the same churches that condemn gay marriage also patronized slavery and slaughter as a way of salvation.

edit: grammar

I'm not pro religion in any way shape or form, I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body' theforethe should be an equivalent. Not sure why you used the word redundant.

if we have an institute that allows two people to live together as a family and share patrimony, why would we need an equivalent that only applies to a specific group? that's playing politics with the law, being redundant and also is against isonomy, everyone is equal to the eyes of the legal system anyways.

Because, history/culture/old fashioned values. 'traditional couples' arent gonnastop what theyve been doing for all this time even if there is a new totally rad version of 'marriage', fuck it, leave them to it. Having an equivalent won't do many harm, itll just keep the religious nutcases at bay and happy.

I see, it's not only government's job to keep christians happy, but to dictate culture.

Yes, but, I cant msee the church backing down any time soon, might as well get as many people as happy as possible.

who cares about pleasing the religiously zealous? they certainly dont care about making others happy or being tolerant

Terpit wrote:

nowaysj wrote:

Terpit wrote:I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body'

Where did you get this idea from?

Well before today, I wanst aware that marriages outside of religious buildings that weren't religious ceremonies were considered as marriage, I thought they were a legal equivalent. However I've been proven wrong. I guess living in an completely different society changes perceptions as well.

i was married with no affiliation to any religion. one has nothing to do with the other to me

fractal wrote:who cares about pleasing the religiously zealous? they certainly dont care about making others happy or being tolerant

Terpit wrote:

nowaysj wrote:

Terpit wrote:I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body'

Where did you get this idea from?

Well before today, I wanst aware that marriages outside of religious buildings that weren't religious ceremonies were considered as marriage, I thought they were a legal equivalent. However I've been proven wrong. I guess living in an completely different society changes perceptions as well.

i was married with no affiliation to any religion. one has nothing to do with the other to me

I guess having lived in a very Islamic country for a long time has changed my perspectives. Here religion and government are practically the same thing (to an extent)

Whereabouts in the middle east do you live?

JBoy wrote:Whereabouts in the middle east do you live?

United Arab Emirates

Terpit wrote:Yes, but, I cant msee the church backing down any time soon, might as well get as many people as happy as possible.

Yeah, because gay people are gonna back down.

Genevieve wrote:

Terpit wrote:Yes, but, I cant msee the church backing down any time soon, might as well get as many people as happy as possible.

Yeah, because gay people are gonna back down.

...which is why I've been suggesting a legal equivalent this whole time