Seasons

Annakie: Good point.

Anyways i'm going to bow out of this before it turns into a flame war I look forward to more opinions.

It seems to me that it's a matter of semantics, really. As far as the government is concerned, all civil unions ought to be called "civil unions" and treated equally under the law (marriage being what you get in a church, which should have zilch to do with the workings of government). This part of the debate is not about whether God loves gay people, but about whether gay people are entitled to the same rights. I know a couple of gay women who have been living together in a solid, loving relationship for more than 20 years, and are raising three healthy, well-adjusted kids together. I think it's a pure horror that if one of them were to fall ill or die, the other would have *no rights* to make any decisions regarding medical treatment, funeral arrangements, or possibly the future of their children.

Also, I think nothing could be more wrong than to have the majority vote on whether to continue oppressing a minority. None of the progress made in civil rights, from abolition of slavery to votes for women, would have happened if it had been left to the oppressing majority to vote. That's where it's the government's responsibility, imo, to lead the people.

Good point, Yoiko. Very good point. Before this administration I had believed that although it had its problems, the government would consider the best interests of its people. Perhaps I was naive. But the corruption, divisiveness, and fascist policies of this administration are so blatant that I've completely lost that faith.

There has been a lot of talk about what the term 'marriage' actually means, with reference to the legal system, rights, procreation and the like. Perhaps it is a little naive of me in this day and age, with convenience weddings and so on, but I've always seen marriage as simply a vow of a couple's love for each other in public. It shouldn't be about who owns property and custody of children or anything like that, but about loving someone so much that you want to shout it from the rooftops so that everyone can hear. I realise that people need all the legal stuff too as a safety net, but in my eyes, that's not the point of marriage. And it's for that reason I am for gay marriages. Love is love and it is no less wonderful if it's between two men, two women or a man and a woman.

For the record, I'm agnostic but I do try to live my life according to Christian principles. I figure the rule of 'Treat others as you would like to be treated and love your neighbour' is a pretty good philosophy of life, and if I follow that, I can still be a good person even if I don't go to church or pray to God every night.

Ooh, and something you might be interested to hear: the term 'tying the knot' comes from part of the Viking ceremony of marriage, which involved tying the groom's cloak to the bride's skirt as a symbol of their union.

Other cultures sometimes literally tied the couple's hands together, giving us the term "handfasting" for a marriage ceremony. (I think this is Celtic, but I could be wrong)

And I agree with Laydee. A declaration of marriage should be about love, first and foremost. What difference if the couple happens to be same-sex?

Ulrike, yes, I'm pretty sure that's where handfasting comes from. It's common among Wiccans--I went to one a few weeks ago.

... In other news, there's a piece (not very informative) in today's New York Times about computers that write fiction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/books/22fict.html?oref=login&th

There's a link in the article to the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, as well.

http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/

(So far, my record is only 19 letters from the Comedy of Errors.)

"Pretty as it may be to think that "no religion" would make the world a better place, science has been responsible for some nasty stuff as well. Example: Residents near atomic bomb tests........"

Well, that is true, but heres a thought. Why were they testing atomic bombs? To end conflicts. These conflicts began because of differing views of the world and how we should live...that comes from religion in my mind.

Stop the cause, stop the result.

Btw, dont want to start a flame war, thats just my views .

"To end conflicts. These conflicts began because of differing views of the world and how we should live...that comes from religion in my mind."

I disagree. Conflicts can spring from all kinds of places that have nothing to do with religion. One example is greed for other people's land and the resources that land holds.

Everyone has a worldview, whether they think of it as a religion or not. Outlawing worldviews that we call "religion" would not eliminate different worldviews not based on religion. And it would also alienate people who consider themselves religious, likely leading to further conflict.

Consider the cold war. The Communists (publicly at least) were anti-religion. This did not stop them having many many problems. Also, their conflict with the U.S. was based on differences in economic policies more than anything else (though some people did drag religion into it when denigrating communism).

*shrugs* Not looking for a flame war either. But I might suggest reading Harrison Bergeron for a disturbing vision of a conflict-free world. Sure, if there were no differences in opinion, there'd be no conflict (and we wouldn't be able to have this discussion ). But that's not reasonable. It might be more reasonable to teach people tolerance of opinions that don't match their own.

If we all had the same opinions, and thus couldn't start conflicts because of them, we'd all basically be the same person, and what reason would there be to have several billion clones walking around on the earth?

Im not suggesting we have no conflicts and differing views at all due to no religion, of course that would be boring! . However I would love not to see conflicts on such a large scale.

I stand corrected, you are right that conflicts do arise from other places not related to religion. However I still think that religion is one of a few main factors involved.

"It might be more reasonable to teach people tolerance of opinions that don't match their own. " I support this all the way, it is one of the main points of R.E. lessons, just a shame it doesnt always work.