Does Anyone have any GOOD Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[CalBoy]

I recall reading an interesting piece by a guy named Corvino who wrote that there is essentially no good reason why society shouldn't promote gay rights. So, I invite the conservatives among us to present their case. Do you have any GOOD reasons for denying same-sex couples equal rights?

[Iscariot]

It killed the dinosaurs.

Also, nuclear families produce more energy.

[it5five]

Jesus hated teh gays. Duh.

[juanm]

There's something intrinsic with the right wing everywhere in the world: they share a complex towards sexuality, and they won't like people who doesn't. They won't admit they have sexual impulses, and try to repress them in everybody around them at an obsessive level, let alone on people confortable enough with their sexuality to accept their attirance towards the same sex.

For me, lots of problems can get reduced to sex... World would be a better place if there was some kind of public and free oral sex service.

"Político bien follado es feliz y rinde más"

In the Marquesas islands, before the missionaries arrived, marital sex happened before the eyes of the family and the rest of the tribe. Sure, they ate people, but I'd have liked to live there for a while, just to see how life was.

[Agathon]

I have one: it is cruel to inflict the horror of marriage upon gay people. ;)

[yg17]

I have one: it is cruel to inflict the horror of marriage upon gay people. ;)

Bullyouknowwhat. They should have to suffer like the rest of us :D

[Iscariot]

I have one: it is cruel to inflict the horror of marriage upon gay people. ;)

What a slippery slope that is. Soon we'll be burdening them with the adoption of children, and the next thing we know their fabulous lifestyles will no longer be the source of envy.

Abolish gay rights to protect them from our startling mediocrity. I demand they not be brought down to our level.

[solvs]

Uh, because a bunch of guys who are probably closet cases themselves say that God told them so?

And because it hurts the childrens. And America. And apple pie. Won't somebody please think of the apple pie!


So, yeah, no... even for those of us who aren't gay it's about rights, and just because some people think it's wrong, that doesn't mean anyone has the right to dictate how others live their lives if it's between 2 loving, consensual adults and doesn't affect anyone else.

[Agathon]

Abolish gay rights to protect them from our startling mediocrity. I demand they not be brought down to our level.

You're right. If this continues, gay people everywhere will have to adopt the sartorial standards of Ted Nugent.

[SMM]

What makes a good-hearted person has nothing to do with their private life. Maybe we should stop cataloging people into groups?

[MACDRIVE]

I have an argument against public displays of affection. I don't want to see any kissing, hand holding, hugging, or winking. That goes for straight people too.

[Swarmlord]

I have an argument against public displays of affection. I don't want to see any kissing, hand holding, hugging, or winking. That goes for straight people too.

Now there's an idea that I can support.

[MongoTheGeek]

I disagree with it on grammatical grounds. Its an affront to the English language.

[wordmunger]

You can make the case that there shouldn't be LEGAL support for marriage at all -- that the government shouldn't be involved.

But the problem with that is the whole idea of "next of kin" -- who's responsible for an individual when they die or get hurt? The government probably does need to be involved. But maybe you don't call it "marriage."

[Sdashiki]

Its all about taxes. There really is no other reason to be married.

No one is telling you that you cant love someone, though that is what is implied by even saying the term "Gay Marriage". Automatically that makes it something wholly different when it should not be. Its just marriage like any other.

If you want to be miserable for the rest of your life, go for it. :cool:


Govt. ********* FTW! ;)

[Naimfan]

Do you have any GOOD reasons for denying same-sex couples equal rights?

No, because there aren't any. Only bad reasons.

[MongoTheGeek]

Do you have any GOOD reasons for denying same-sex couples equal rights?

Groups have no rights.
Individuals have rights.
Homosexuals have the same ones as heterosexuals.
A homosexual man can marry any woman he wants and who will have him.

[leekohler]

Groups have no rights.
Individuals have rights.
Homosexuals have the same ones as heterosexuals.
A homosexual man can marry any woman he wants and who will have him.

I hope that was a joke.

[CalBoy]

I have one: it is cruel to inflict the horror of marriage upon gay people. ;)
Best post!:D
I have an argument against public displays of affection. I don't want to see any kissing, hand holding, hugging, or winking. That goes for straight people too.
Agreed. We have bedrooms and the backseats of cars for a reason.
Its all about taxes. There really is no other reason to be married.

Not entirely. There are issues when it comes to having a partner who's of a different national origin, and there are issues involved with property rights of the next of kin as someone mentioned above.

Groups have no rights.
Individuals have rights.
Homosexuals have the same ones as heterosexuals.
A homosexual man can marry any woman he wants and who will have him.

Ok, fine, how come we haven't given homosexuals and heterosexuals the right to marry any person they want to?

[gauchogolfer]

Because I'm not into dudes.



Oh, you meant for the entire population....no, I don't have any good arguments against it.

[j26]

Groups have no rights.
Individuals have rights.
Homosexuals have the same ones as heterosexuals.
A homosexual man can marry any woman he wants and who will have him.

So you can only exercise rights given to you? What a narrow view.

Have you ever considered that certain rights are superior to law i.e. the whole natural law and natural rights view, as espoused by many churches?

[kainjow]

Do you have any GOOD reasons for denying same-sex couples equal rights?

Easy. My youth pastor said it's a sin!!1!

[MongoTheGeek]

So you can only exercise rights given to you? What a narrow view.

no...
Rights imply something inherent. If its given its not a right.

Have you ever considered that certain rights are superior to law i.e. the whole natural law and natural rights view, as espoused by many churches?

I tend to follow a Lockian interpretation where laws only serve to restrain our rights.

My complaint with "gay marriage" is semantic. A marriage is monogamous union between a man and a woman to establish and ensure the paternity of offspring.

If 2 homosexuals want to sit down and form a partnership to control all of their assets (to handle inheritance issues) and sign a durable power of attorney(to cover such things as medical decisions when incapacitated) fine. If the several states want to pass laws bundling items together, fine. But its not a marriage.

[davidjearly]

no...
Rights imply something inherent. If its given its not a right.

I tend to follow a Lockian interpretation where laws only serve to restrain our rights.

My complaint with "gay marriage" is semantic. A marriage is monogamous union between a man and a woman to establish and ensure the paternity of offspring.

If 2 homosexuals want to sit down and form a partnership to control all of their assets (to handle inheritance issues) and sign a durable power of attorney(to cover such things as medical decisions when incapacitated) fine. If the several states want to pass laws bundling items together, fine. But its not a marriage.

Agreed. Couldn't have said it better actually.

[Father Jack]

No ..... because Father Ted Crilly and Father Dougal Maguire say it's a sin.

[imac/cheese]

no...
Rights imply something inherent. If its given its not a right.



I tend to follow a Lockian interpretation where laws only serve to restrain our rights.

My complaint with "gay marriage" is semantic. A marriage is monogamous union between a man and a woman to establish and ensure the paternity of offspring.

If 2 homosexuals want to sit down and form a partnership to control all of their assets (to handle inheritance issues) and sign a durable power of attorney(to cover such things as medical decisions when incapacitated) fine. If the several states want to pass laws bundling items together, fine. But its not a marriage.


What if my wife and I do not want to have children... are we still married? We were united to commit our lives to each other not to establish paternity.

[leekohler]

no...
Rights imply something inherent. If its given its not a right.



I tend to follow a Lockian interpretation where laws only serve to restrain our rights.

My complaint with "gay marriage" is semantic. A marriage is monogamous union between a man and a woman to establish and ensure the paternity of offspring.

If 2 homosexuals want to sit down and form a partnership to control all of their assets (to handle inheritance issues) and sign a durable power of attorney(to cover such things as medical decisions when incapacitated) fine. If the several states want to pass laws bundling items together, fine. But its not a marriage.

Oh lord- not this tired argument again. Are you going to force all married couples without children to have children or thus declare their marriage annuled? If not, then can it. Let me remind you that plenty of gay people have kids too. Your definition isn't written in stone anywhere either, unless you live in some silly state that decided to write it into your constitution.

And your "given" argument is flawed as well. Did slaves have rights until we gave them to them? Did women have the right to vote inherently, or did we give it to them?

Sorry to be so short, but I get sick of this particular argument as it is completely ridiculous and lacks any sort of merit whatsoever.

[Father Jack]

What if my wife and I do not want to have children... are we still married? We were united to commit our lives to each other not to establish paternity.
Well said my friend .. :)

[atszyman]

My complaint with "gay marriage" is semantic. A marriage is monogamous union between a man and a woman to establish and ensure the paternity of offspring.

If 2 homosexuals want to sit down and form a partnership to control all of their assets (to handle inheritance issues) and sign a durable power of attorney(to cover such things as medical decisions when incapacitated) fine. If the several states want to pass laws bundling items together, fine. But its not a marriage.

I'll agree as far as the definition of a monogamous union between a man and a woman, but it has nothing to do with children.

Your second point is the entire extent that government should be involved with or concerned with the union between two consenting adults. The biggest problem in this whole debate is that the government adopted the term "marriage" for this contract/union and provided a relatively easy path for straight couples to achieve this goal.

The easiest way for same sex unions to be accepted soon would be for the government to re-name the legal contract binding two individuals that covers inheritance and power of attorney. 90% of the arguments against same sex unions would disappear in an instant if the legal union was no longer called "marriage" and "marriage" became strictly a religious ceremony. All couples homo or hetero would be able to enter the legal contract provided it is between two consenting adults.

[Rodimus Prime]

Now I do not think there should be same-Sex Marriage because a marriage is between a man and women. Also the Churches have every right not to do marriages of same sex because they do have religious grounds against it (no arguing around that point.

Now I do think that there should be a way for a gay couple to get the same rights and protections as a marriage just have it under a different term like civil unions. Yes it is a word game but civil union does not screw with the diffenicetion of the word marriage and it would prevent an very long list of problem for the churches because the churches will refuse to do gay marriages.

[CalBoy]

no...
Rights imply something inherent. If its given its not a right.
So the freedom to practice any religion is not a right, since it's given to us by the Constitution?:confused::confused:


I tend to follow a Lockian interpretation where laws only serve to restrain our rights.

My complaint with "gay marriage" is semantic. A marriage is monogamous union between a man and a woman to establish and ensure the paternity of offspring.

If 2 homosexuals want to sit down and form a partnership to control all of their assets (to handle inheritance issues) and sign a durable power of attorney(to cover such things as medical decisions when incapacitated) fine. If the several states want to pass laws bundling items together, fine. But its not a marriage.
Under that "semantic" argument, any couple that is married and doesn't have children would also not be able to get "married." In addition, any woman who has gone past menopause must also be considered "unmarried" since she no longer has the capacity to have children.

No ..... because Father Ted Crilly and Father Dougal Maguire say it's a sin.

Isn't it funny how the Catholic Church also used to have a ban against usury? How times have changed...

Now I do not think there should be same-Sex Marriage because a marriage is between a man and women. Also the Churches have every right not to do marriages of same sex because they do have religious grounds against it (no arguing around that point.
Please don't use a tautology to defend your position. We're discussing whether or not marriage should be (or rather, why shouldn't it be?) extended to same-sex couples. All you've done is state that the marriage is currently between a man and a woman. We know this already.
I agree with you on the point about churches though. No one can force them to perform the ceremonies.

Now I do think that there should be a way for a gay couple to get the same rights and protections as a marriage just have it under a different term like civil unions. Yes it is a word game but civil union does not screw with the diffenicetion of the word marriage and it would prevent an very long list of problem for the churches because the churches will refuse to do gay marriages.
Haven't we learned that "separate but equal" is a pipe dream? Forgive my hollow hope, but I assumed that we had already dealt with that :rolleyes:

[Shotglass]

My personal bottom line:

If you think it's sin, don't do it.

If you don't believe in the concept of sin, knock yourself out.

One may think it's wrong, but you can't force people to adopt your beliefs. You may be able to convince people, but if they don't want to believe what you believe, just leave them alone.

Furthermore, please never mess up religion and national law. They're 2 completely different institutions, and they just don't mix.

[Naimfan]

So the freedom to practice any religion is not a right, since it's given to us by the Constitution?:confused::confused:


Just for example, freedom of religion is not a right given by the Constitution. What the Constitution (to be pedantic, the First Amendment) does is prohibit Congress from restricting that right. See the difference?

[shu82]

The gov't should not have anything to do with marriage! Legally its a partnership contract like any other. Who cares what parties make up said contract. It shouldn't matter if its a man, woman, goat, condo, Richard Simmons or multinational corporation which make up a partnership.

Just because sex is involved who cares? Its still a shared property partnership.

[j26]

I tend to follow a Lockian interpretation where laws only serve to restrain our rights.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't Locke's point (and most contractarians, for that matter) that the sacrifice of certain freedoms was contained in a contract designed to protect certain rights, so that in effect the law decided what rights are? That could be a gross oversimplification, so correct me if I am wrong

My complaint with "gay marriage" is semantic. A marriage is monogamous union between a man and a woman to establish and ensure the paternity of offspring.
Taking semantics on, what about the expression "Married to your job". Words take on certain meanings. Don't assume that the current meaning was always the same and will be the same forever. Just look at the word "gay". What does that mean, and what did it mean even 50 years ago?

Specifically addressing marriage, the institution is an artificial construct. We created it, and we can redefine it as we see fit. The introduction of divorce, which ends a marriage (which is a vow to remain married for life) is an example of this.
Obviously you don't believe change to the meaning if marriage is necessary, but many do.

If 2 homosexuals want to sit down and form a partnership to control all of their assets (to handle inheritance issues) and sign a durable power of attorney(to cover such things as medical decisions when incapacitated) fine. If the several states want to pass laws bundling items together, fine. But its not a marriage.
Ultimately you are talking of the Christian view on marriage. There are others, notably the civil concept, which should be separated from the church view. I would not consider compelling a church to accept a form of marriage which is against its collective conscience, but the state marriage is different.

[leekohler]

Just for example, freedom of religion is not a right given by the Constitution. What the Constitution (to be pedantic, the First Amendment) does is prohibit Congress from restricting that right. See the difference?

No. In many countries people don't have the right to freedom of religion.

[MongoTheGeek]

What if my wife and I do not want to have children... are we still married? We were united to commit our lives to each other not to establish paternity.

Yes, but if she has a kid is it yours?

So the freedom to practice any religion is not a right, since it's given to us by the Constitution?:confused::confused:

The Constitution is an agreement where we give up certain of our rights in order to get those same constraints on other people. Its actually a little more meta than that. Its an agreement on how agreements will be formed and the restrictions on the scope of the agreements.

The first amendment says that no agreement at the federal level will name an official state supported church or prevent people from choosing faith to express and practice.

At the time of the signing there were several states that had their own official churches so the interpretation has changed over the years.

Under that "semantic" argument, any couple that is married and doesn't have children would also not be able to get "married." In addition, any woman who has gone past menopause must also be considered "unmarried" since she no longer has the capacity to have children.

Its to establish paternity of any children. While it is true that an 80 year old woman will not likely give birth through a child through natural means, the purpose of marriage is to establish paternity if she does.

Please don't use a tautology to defend your position. We're discussing whether or not marriage should be (or rather, why shouldn't it be?) extended to same-sex couples. All you've done is state that the marriage is currently between a man and a woman. We know this already.

As I said my problem is with changing the definitions arbitrarily. New concept, new word please.

Haven't we learned that "separate but equal" is a pipe dream? Forgive my hollow hope, but I assumed that we had already dealt with that :rolleyes:

My point is that the rules are the same for everyone.

[MongoTheGeek]

Taking semantics on, what about the expression "Married to your job". Words take on certain meanings. Don't assume that the current meaning was always the same and will be the same forever. Just look at the word "gay". What does that mean, and what did it mean even 50 years ago?

:) Okay. I realize that puns and metaphors are a glitch in my approach but when restricted to formal language I believe that I am right. Gay is a perfect example of why it shouldn't be used. English has so many more words than any other language and that allows it to add so many delicate shades of means. Gay meant happy in a festive airy manner. Now it has fallen into 2 antethetical meanings. One as a pure pejorative and other as a totally interchangeable synonym for homosexual. Morn the passing of the gay 90s.

[leekohler]

Yes, but if she has a kid is it yours?

He said he wasn't going to have kids. Don't avoid the question.



The Constitution is an agreement where we give up certain of our rights in order to get those same constraints on other people. Its actually a little more meta than that. Its an agreement on how agreements will be formed and the restrictions on the scope of the agreements.

The first amendment says that no agreement at the federal level will name an official state supported church or prevent people from choosing faith to express and practice.

People also have the freedom to not have a religion. If you're using a religious definition of marriage, that still has nothing to do with a civil marriage.



Its to establish paternity of any children.

Please show me where this is the only definition of marriage.



As I said my problem is with changing the definitions arbitrarily. New concept, new word please.

No one's changing any definition, only expanding certain rights to people you seem to feel you need to separate yourself from.




My point is that the rules are the same for everyone.

No- they aren't, and you know it.

Gay meant happy in a festive airy manner.

It still means that. Trust me. ;)

[atszyman]

Yes, but if she has a kid is it yours?


How does marriage make it his? Marriage does not prevent either partner from having another man's child or impregnating another woman. The fact that the couple is married does not automatically make the spouse responsible for the child.

I can appreciate trying to draw a line at the traditional/religious definition of "marriage" between a man and a woman, but legal marriage should not be contingent on the sex of the partners entering into the contract, and should have never been called marriage in the first place.

[imac/cheese]

Yes, but if she has a kid is it yours?

There would be no doubt in my mind that the child would be mine, but that is not why we got married. We were married in a religious ceremony that stated our commitments to each other, not to establish the potential of future paternity. Does the government require that we get married for establishment of paternity or can we get married for other reasons? In today's society with DNA tests readily available it seems to me that marriage would act as more of a hinderance to determining paternity. Married men would likely assume that the child is their own, while unmarried men would opt for a DNA test.

My point is that the rules are the same for everyone.

But are the rules fair to everyone?

[imac/cheese]

I can appreciate trying to draw a line at the traditional/religious definition of "marriage" between a man and a woman, but legal marriage should not be contingent on the sex of the partners entering into the contract, and should have never been called marriage in the first place.

I find this statement a bit strange. Are you saying that ages ago when governments first decided to recognize marriages as legal unions or partnerships, they should have come up with a different name for them?

[CorvusCamenarum]

How does marriage make it his? Marriage does not prevent either partner from having another man's child or impregnating another woman. The fact that the couple is married does not automatically make the spouse responsible for the child.
Actually, in many states, a child born into a marriage is automatically presumed to be the legal responsibility of the married parties. There have been a couple cases that got some limited national attention, such as Parker v. Parker in Florida, that held that even though the mother misrepresented her pregnancy to her husband (not his kid), he was still on the hook for chid support.

I can appreciate trying to draw a line at the traditional/religious definition of "marriage" between a man and a woman, but legal marriage should not be contingent on the sex of the partners entering into the contract, and should have never been called marriage in the first place.
You're forgetting the silent third partner in a marriage - the state. Personally I'd like to see marriage redefined completely for everyone where the state has as little input as possible, before, during, and after.

[atszyman]

I find this statement a bit strange. Are you saying that ages ago when governments first decided to recognize marriages as legal unions or partnerships, they should have come up with a different name for them?

Why not? They don't call city counsel meetings "Masses" do they?

Marriage was a religious institution. While there were legal issues that could be solved with a similar partner relationship, the legal contract should not have usurped the name of the religious one. I understand why they did it, but you can see what kind of trouble it leads to with the same sex marriage debate.

If justice of the peace or courthouse unions had been called something other than marriage, most of the arguments I've heard against same sex couples getting "married" would be defused before they were even uttered.

[j26]

Why not? They don't call city counsel meetings "Masses" do they?

Marriage was a religious institution. While there were legal issues that could be solved with a similar partner relationship, the legal contract should not have usurped the name of the religious one. I understand why they did it, but you can see what kind of trouble it leads to with the same sex marriage debate.

If justice of the peace or courthouse unions had been called something other than marriage, most of the arguments I've heard against same sex couples getting "married" would be defused before they were even uttered.

"The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32)." Source (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)
This indicates that civil marriage almost certainly predates the Christian religious view on marriage.

On the terminology used, I can pretty much guarantee that whatever name is used for same-sex partnerships, within 20-30 years it will be absorbed within the term "marriage". Our vocabulary is shrinking, not growing.

[imac/cheese]

Marriage was a religious institution. While there were legal issues that could be solved with a similar partner relationship, the legal contract should not have usurped the name of the religious one. I understand why they did it, but you can see what kind of trouble it leads to with the same sex marriage debate.

If justice of the peace or courthouse unions had been called something other than marriage, most of the arguments I've heard against same sex couples getting "married" would be defused before they were even uttered.

Marriage has been both a religious institution and a legal institution for a very long time. The Jews of the Old Testament times set up all sorts of legal restrictions through the marriage contract. I do not see the point in trying to separate the religious marriages and the non-religious civil unions. We should just call them all marriages.

[imac/cheese]

"The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32)." Source (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)
This indicates that civil marriage almost certainly predates the Christian religious view on marriage.

On the terminology used, I can pretty much guarantee that whatever name is used for same-sex partnerships, within 20-30 years it will be absorbed within the term "marriage". Our vocabulary is shrinking, not growing.

While I agree that Paul's was the first Christian reference to marriage being a sacrament (as far as I know) that does not mean that the Jews before Paul held marriage as simply a legal contract. It was both a religious ceremony and a legal institution.

But I do agree that we should just use the term marriage for everything.

[Rodimus Prime]

Haven't we learned that "separate but equal" is a pipe dream? Forgive my hollow hope, but I assumed that we had already dealt with that :rolleyes:



You miss the point of my argument completely.

The only difference would be the name. Civil Unions and marriages would have the same legal rights. The only difference is marriages are restricted to man and woman other wise they are the exact same damn thing.

So as I said you failed to deal with it. Reason behind it is as long as the term marriage is used it going to be a lot more difficult to deal with the religious groups and they will scream bloody murder. Now changing the name to civil unions at least weakens the churches argument. And as I said originally the only difference between the 2 legally is marriage is man and woman after that everything is exactly the same.

[imac/cheese]

You miss the point of my argument completely.

The only difference would be the name. Civil Unions and marriages would have the same legal rights. The only difference is marriages are restricted to man and woman other wise they are the exact same damn thing.

So as I said you failed to deal with it. Reason behind it is as long as the term marriage is used it going to be a lot more difficult to deal with the religious groups and they will scream bloody murder. Now changing the name to civil unions at least weakens the churches argument. And as I said originally the only difference between the 2 legally is marriage is man and woman after that everything is exactly the same.

So what do you call a same sex couple that has a civil union? Are they partnered, unionized, joined, contracted... To me that just opens the doorway to additional discrimination. If it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck, just call it a duck. People who do not like ducks will just have to come to terms with it.

What if a man and a woman want to get a civil union without a religious ceremony? Would it still be a marriage or would it have to be called something else?

[aquajet]

You miss the point of my argument completely.

The only difference would be the name. Civil Unions and marriages would have the same legal rights. The only difference is marriages are restricted to man and woman other wise they are the exact same damn thing.

So as I said you failed to deal with it. Reason behind it is as long as the term marriage is used it going to be a lot more difficult to deal with the religious groups and they will scream bloody murder. Now changing the name to civil unions at least weakens the churches argument. And as I said originally the only difference between the 2 legally is marriage is man and woman after that everything is exactly the same.

Would a straight couple be able to get a Civil Union?

Yeah, not exactly "the same damn thing" anymore, is it?

[atszyman]

What if a man and a woman want to get a civil union without a religious ceremony? Would it still be a marriage or would it have to be called something else?

Would a straight couple be able to get a Civil Union?

Yeah, not exactly "the same damn thing" anymore, is it?

The easiest way to defuse most fighting against it now is to make the legal side Civil unions for all, gay and straight.

Straight and gay couples can get Civil Unions with a simple JOP ceremony or any other authorized official. Churches could "marry" whomever the hell they wanted, but it would have no legal standing. You could authorize the religious officials to do Civil Unions just like they can handle the legal portion of weddings now.

I agree that most likely within a decade it would all be called marriage anyway because people are lazy, but right now there is a large portion of the general population who only have an issue with it because they feel it shouldn't be called "marriage." So it's either change the legal terminology, or wait for these people to see the differences between religious and legal marriage.

[.Andy]

My wife and I got a civil union. Granted we had to travel half way around the world to get one, but we got one. We've considered married in Australia. However if we were a same sex couple that had the same civil union it would invalid here. It's ridiculous.

[KingYaba]

I recall reading an interesting piece by a guy named Corvino who wrote that there is essentially no good reason why society shouldn't promote gay rights. So, I invite the conservatives among us to present their case. Do you have any GOOD reasons for denying same-sex couples equal rights?

You allow gays to marry yet deny polygamists or my neighbor who wishes to marry his cow the "right" to marry?

[atszyman]

You allow gays to marry yet deny polygamists or my neighbor who wishes to marry his cow the "right" to marry?

Marriage is currently a legal contract between two individuals, like many business partnerships. The legal questions get more difficult if you try to allow for more than two people to enter into the contract.

What happens when one becomes incapacitated, and one survivor wants a treatment the other wants to deny? Who is in charge? When one dies how is the property split between the survivors? There is no compelling reason to expand it to allow more than two individuals to enter the legal union, unless you want more headaches and lawsuits.

Can you enter into a legal contract with the Cow? Can you give your dog Power of attorney? Plenty of contracts require consenting adults to participate, how does marriage differ?

[.Andy]

You allow gays to marry yet deny polygamists or my neighbor who wishes to marry his cow the "right" to marry?
For some reason I'm not surprised you live next door to someone who wants to marry their cow.

[leekohler]

Marriage is currently a legal contract between two individuals, like many business partnerships. The legal questions get more difficult if you try to allow for more than two people to enter into the contract.

What happens when one becomes incapacitated, and one survivor wants a treatment the other wants to deny? Who is in charge? When one dies how is the property split between the survivors? There is no compelling reason to expand it to allow more than two individuals to enter the legal union, unless you want more headaches and lawsuits.

Can you enter into a legal contract with the Cow? Can you give your dog Power of attorney? Plenty of contracts require consenting adults to participate, how does marriage differ?

He's not interested in fairness or reason, only making sure we can't be equal to him. There's no other logical reason for statements like that. So now I'm the same as a cow? What rational human being can't figure out the difference between a cow and a person?

[.Andy]

What rational human being can't figure out the difference between a cow and a human being?
Apparently Texans.

[KingYaba]

You're taking this the wrong way, lee. How did you interpret my comment as a comparison between gays and cows? The original question is, "Does anyone have any good arguments against same-sex marriage."

The argument people will use is if one is allowed others must be allowed (marriage between multiple partnes, and the freaks who want to marry animals). Especially the individuals who wish to marry multiple parters because as atszy pointed it, business partnerships can be with multiple entities. ;) Plus the "fairness" question will always arise.

Either everyone gets to marry or no one.

[atszyman]

The argument people will use is if one is allowed others must be allowed (marriage between multiple partnes, and the freaks who want to marry animals). Especially the individuals who wish to marry multiple parters because as atszy pointed it, business partnerships can be with multiple entities. ;)

No one is saying that they can't have multiple partners. They can only be legally bound to one to establish a clear path for guardianship and inheritance.

How hard is it to specify a legal contract that can be entered into by only two consenting adults?

You want to move in with 6 other people you want to sleep with, fine, you just can't be legally bound to more than one at a time.

[leekohler]

You're taking this the wrong way, lee. How did you interpret my comment as a comparison between gays and cows? The original question is, "Does anyone have any good arguments against same-sex marriage."

The argument people will use is if one is allowed others must be allowed (marriage between multiple partnes, and the freaks who want to marry animals). Especially the individuals who wish to marry multiple parters because as atszy pointed it, business partnerships can be with multiple entities. ;) Plus the "fairness" question will always arise.

Either everyone gets to marry or no one.

Sorry, I guess maybe I did. That doesn't change the fact that that wasn't a good argument. ;)


You want to move in with 6 other people you want to sleep with, fine, you just can't be legally bound to more than one at a time.

That sounds like fun!!! :D:D

[davidjearly]

I honestly can't grasp what is so difficult about this whole argument.

From its roots, 'marriage' is a religious ceremony. For this reason, same-sex marriages should NOT be permitted. This is called a civil union or partnership, where the couple involved are given the same legal rights as married couples, but not recognised by the church.

In my eyes, this is the way it should be. However, I also don't really agree with the term 'marriage' being used for couples forming a partnership who themselves, are not religious.

David

[leekohler]

I honestly can't grasp what is so difficult about this whole argument.

From its roots, 'marriage' is a religious ceremony. For this reason, same-sex marriages should NOT be permitted. This is called a civil union or partnership, where the couple involved are given the same legal rights as married couples, but not recognised by the church.

In my eyes, this is the way it should be. However, I also don't really agree with the term 'marriage' being used for couples forming a partnership who themselves, are not religious.

David

Sorry- the meaning is different everywhere. But make no mistake about it, I'll never get married in a church. You don't ever have to worry about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[davidjearly]

Sorry- the meaning is different everywhere. But make no mistake about it, I'll never get married in a church. You don't ever have to worry about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

I'm not disputing about the meaning currently. What I am saying, is at it's roots, marriage is a religious ceremony. Therefore same-sex couples should not get 'married', but be in a different 'official' partnership (e.g. Civil Union).

[imac/cheese]

I honestly can't grasp what is so difficult about this whole argument.

From its roots, 'marriage' is a religious ceremony. For this reason, same-sex marriages should NOT be permitted. This is called a civil union or partnership, where the couple involved are given the same legal rights as married couples, but not recognised by the church.

In my eyes, this is the way it should be. However, I also don't really agree with the term 'marriage' being used for couples forming a partnership who themselves, are not religious.

David

What if someone is involved in a religion that allows same-sex marriages and their same-sex marriage is performed in a church? Could they then call themselves married or do they still not get to use the term simply because they are the same sex?

[atszyman]

I'm not disputing about the meaning currently. What I am saying, is at it's roots, marriage is a religious ceremony. Therefore same-sex couples should not get 'married', but be in a different 'official' partnership (e.g. Civil Union).

If you're going to do that why not just call the legal aspect of marriage a Civil Union for all. Straight couples can get "married" in their church and also get the legally binding Civil Union. Gay couples can get "married" if a church is willing. And all couples, gay or straight can skip the church and get a Civil Union.

Fair to all, and eliminates the confusion of the religious vs legal aspects of marriage.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I'm not disputing about the meaning currently. What I am saying, is at it's roots, marriage is a religious ceremony. Therefore same-sex couples should not get 'married', but be in a different 'official' partnership (e.g. Civil Union).
I agree but a main point in this has to be the lack of creation of new little tax payers to pay for Bush's war, Social Security and the next space race. Fact is opposite sex marriages almost allways create offspring, Same sex marriage dont. New Tax Payers is what its all about.:D

[davidjearly]

What if someone is involved in a religion that allows same-sex marriages and their same-sex marriage is performed in a church? Could they then call themselves married or do they still not get to use the term simply because they are the same sex?

It's not about that. It's about what the word actually means. Regardless of whatever (if any) religion wants to allow same-sex 'marriages', they still should not be called that. It's also not about where the marriage is performed.

In any case, I don't make the rules, just my opinions. And in this case, I don't believe that same-sex partnerships should be termed 'marriages', as from the origins of the word, 'marriage', it is a sin.

[davidjearly]

If you're going to do that why not just call the legal aspect of marriage a Civil Union for all. Yes.

Straight couples can get "married" in their church and also get the legally binding Civil Union. Yes.

Gay couples can get "married" if a church is willing. No.

And all couples, gay or straight can skip the church and get a Civil Union. Yes.

[j26]

From its roots, 'marriage' is a religious ceremony. For this reason, same-sex marriages should NOT be permitted. This is called a civil union or partnership, where the couple involved are given the same legal rights as married couples, but not recognised by the church.
David

At its roots, marriage is a property transaction. A man agreed to take another mans daughter off his hands, and she became his property. The sanctified and romantic versions of marriage came later.

[davidjearly]

At its roots, marriage is a property transaction. A man agreed to take another mans daughter off his hands, and she became his property. The sanctified and romantic versions of marriage came later.

Not true.

[CalBoy]

Just for example, freedom of religion is not a right given by the Constitution. What the Constitution (to be pedantic, the First Amendment) does is prohibit Congress from restricting that right. See the difference?
In other words, you don't have the right to a religion, the government simply doesn't have the right to create one. I guess that fits, but I fail to see how we can compare that to same-sex marriage, as that was the goal of MongoTheGeek.
The Constitution is an agreement where we give up certain of our rights in order to get those same constraints on other people. Its actually a little more meta than that. Its an agreement on how agreements will be formed and the restrictions on the scope of the agreements.
Funny how the Constitution doesn't establish whether or not marriage is restricted to certain people. If anything, the Constitution is meant to protect a minority from the tyrany of the majority. In this case, I'd say that the majority is doing a pretty good job of harrassing and terrorizing the minority.

The first amendment says that no agreement at the federal level will name an official state supported church or prevent people from choosing faith to express and practice.
Though it has evolved over time to include all the states, schools, and any other government agency. Isn't it interesting how our legal system is capable of adaptation and change? It's amazing that we can't change our laws now to authorize same-sex marriage:rolleyes:

At the time of the signing there were several states that had their own official churches so the interpretation has changed over the years.
Again, why can't it change again (in areas outside of the 1st Amendment obviously)?


Its to establish paternity of any children. While it is true that an 80 year old woman will not likely give birth through a child through natural means, the purpose of marriage is to establish paternity if she does.
So getting married and having step-children is not possible? Since logically the step-father can't be the biological father, that couple shouldn't be allowed to get married either huh?


As I said my problem is with changing the definitions arbitrarily. New concept, new word please.
We change concepts all the time. Freedome of the Press used to only apply to written material, but as technology progressed, it's been amended to include radio, tv, and the internet. Isn't it amazing how things work? It is very easy to amend the definition of the word to work for the modern day.


My point is that the rules are the same for everyone.
Again, they're not. A gay couple cannot at the moment adopt children in the same way that hetero couples can. If we really want to make the rules the same for everyone, we would want to establish same-sex marriage.
Marriage has been both a religious institution and a legal institution for a very long time. The Jews of the Old Testament times set up all sorts of legal restrictions through the marriage contract. I do not see the point in trying to separate the religious marriages and the non-religious civil unions. We should just call them all marriages.
Marriage has also been non-religious, esspecially in non-Christain parts of the globe. Many cultures had marriage procedures that were not overtly regligious. And, it's esspecially important that we not forget that marriage, as a construct, has been present throughout all of the world's civilizations, and most of those did just fine without the "Christian" definition of marriage. If we're going to use a religious definition of marriage, it would be quite easy for me to create my own church and call them all marriages, whether gay or straight. You'd have to accept this too, since all religious views would have to be accepted, not just the Christian one.

I agree with your conclusion however. Since marriage is the current term in use, it is best to simply keep it and make life simple for all. By trying to "preserve" a false definition (which religious conservatives can't even seem to agree on), the only thing that would be accomplished is unneeded discrimination and an excuse to exclude some members of society from what should be a joyous occasion.
You miss the point of my argument completely.
No, you missed the lessons to be learned from Brown v Board.

The only difference would be the name. Civil Unions and marriages would have the same legal rights. The only difference is marriages are restricted to man and woman other wise they are the exact same damn thing.
ANY difference would create inherrant inequalities. The minute you seperate, you create a distinguishing mark. If they are called the same thing, they will be viewed in a more equal manner.

So as I said you failed to deal with it. Reason behind it is as long as the term marriage is used it going to be a lot more difficult to deal with the religious groups and they will scream bloody murder. Now changing the name to civil unions at least weakens the churches argument. And as I said originally the only difference between the 2 legally is marriage is man and woman after that everything is exactly the same.
So your argument is that because the church would have objections, we should bow to them instead of doing the right thing. Wow, those are some great moral values.
The easiest way to defuse most fighting against it now is to make the legal side Civil unions for all, gay and straight.
It isn't a question of what's the easiest, it's a question of what's the right thing to do. It was the easiest thing to ignore the facts of slavery, but it was the right thing to intervene and stop it.
You allow gays to marry yet deny polygamists or my neighbor who wishes to marry his cow the "right" to marry?
By allowing two gay people to marry, the nature and construct of marriage isn't being fundamentally challenged; it's still an intimate relationship between two PEOPLE. A cow does not have the ability to enter a rational, intimate relationship with a person. Your slippery slope argument is terrible.


From its roots, 'marriage' is a religious ceremony. For this reason, same-sex marriages should NOT be permitted. This is called a civil union or partnership, where the couple involved are given the same legal rights as married couples, but not recognised by the church.
As I indicated before, which religion? If I create a church tomorrow and insist that all ceremonies involving the bond between two people be called a "marriage" are you going to object and say that it only belongs to a certain religion? Face it, religion gave up the exclusive use of the word "marriage" long ago. The government has a need to administer marriages, and thus has the right to use that word as is needed.

In my eyes, this is the way it should be. However, I also don't really agree with the term 'marriage' being used for couples forming a partnership who themselves, are not religious.
Again, how do you define religious? This is vague and would mean that only a handful of couples, undoubtedly ones of the Christian persuasion, would qualifly for your word.

[atszyman]

No.

There are a million different churches with all different rules.

If Bob's Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the Corner of Fifth and Main West Side New Reform, decides it's OK for same sex couples to Marry in their church, who are we to say they can't? It's not like you have to join that church....

[j26]

Not true.

Care to elaborate?
The tradition of dowry has been extensive, and is probably still practiced in several countries. In the UK up until comparatively recently (last hundred years or so) a wife was legally her husbands property. If she was wronged, she couldn't sue - the husband would sue for damage to HIS chattel.

The romantic view of marriage is historically recent, and I would argue that marriage predates the spiritual aspect too.

[leekohler]

I'm not disputing about the meaning currently. What I am saying, is at it's roots, marriage is a religious ceremony. Therefore same-sex couples should not get 'married', but be in a different 'official' partnership (e.g. Civil Union).

In other words, you feel some strange need to treat us differently from you. And no- at it's roots, marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage has many roots, including the "business arrangement" version. You can't claim it all for yourself just because you want to believe it.

And yes, certain churches will marry same sex couples. So we can just get that little myth dispelled for you right now. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Here you go:

http://www.mccny.org/socialjustice.html

[davidjearly]

In other words, you feel some strange need to treat us differently from you. And no- at it's roots, marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage has many roots, including the "business arrangement" version. You can't claim it all for yourself just because you want to believe it.

And yes, certain churches will marry smae sex couples. So we can just get that little myth dispelled for you right now. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Here you go:

http://www.mccny.org/socialjustice.html

I really don't understand the need for the attitude.

As I stated orginally, this is my opinion. You may not like it and you certainly don't have to believe it. Guess what? That is absolutely fine.

You say that I feel the need to treat you differently. If by that you mean 'homosexuals', then yes, I think there should be a specific ceremony or union for homosexuals that isn't called marriage. I also think that the Christian church should not have to accept same-sex marriages as binding or have a duty to perform them. It would be hypocritical.

At its roots, in Christianity, marriage is a religious ceremony. I don't care for how it has evolved into the modern day crisis that it is now.

And again, like it or not, I can believe what I want.

[leekohler]

I really don't understand the need for the attitude.

As I stated orginally, this is my opinion. You may not like it and you certainly don't have to believe it. Guess what? That is absolutely fine.

You say that I feel the need to treat you differently. If by that you mean 'homosexuals', then yes, I think there should be a specific ceremony or union for homosexuals that isn't called marriage. I also think that the Christian church should not have to accept same-sex marriages as binding or have a duty to perform them. It would be hypocritical.

At its roots, in Christianity, marriage is a religious ceremony. I don't care for how it has evolved into the modern day crisis that it is now.

And again, like it or not, I can believe what I want.

If you don't understand the need for the attitude, then you need to try walking in someone else's shoes sometime. Maybe then you'll get it.

Sure- the church has no obligation to marry any same sex couple, that will never change. But some do. You cannot deny that. I just showed you one, there are more.

But that isn't what this thread is about, This thread is about everyone, not just what Christians believe. It's big country we have here, and not everyone is like you. Therefore, laws should be made to be as universal as possible, benefitting as many people as possible, not just Christians. As hard as it may be for you to understand, Christianity does not own marriage.

Again, you can believe what you want, but your beliefs end where my rights begin.

[j26]

I really don't understand the need for the attitude.

As I stated orginally, this is my opinion. You may not like it and you certainly don't have to believe it. Guess what? That is absolutely fine.

You say that I feel the need to treat you differently. If by that you mean 'homosexuals', then yes, I think there should be a specific ceremony or union for homosexuals that isn't called marriage. I also think that the Christian church should not have to accept same-sex marriages as binding or have a duty to perform them. It would be hypocritical.

At its roots, in Christianity, marriage is a religious ceremony. I don't care for how it has evolved into the modern day crisis that it is now.

And again, like it or not, I can believe what I want.

I don't think anyone wants to compel a church to perform such a ceremony - merely that it should be accorded the same legal status (and name) as marriage between man and woman.

On the other point, marriage predates Christianity (Jesus went to a wedding, before he'd started his ministry, remember), so you can't talk of the roots of marriage being in Christianity.

You are of course entitled to your views - we are also entitled to disagree with you (no disrespect intended here btw)

[leekohler]

I don't think anyone wants to compel a church to perform such a ceremony - merely that it should be accorded the same legal status (and name) as marriage between man and woman.

On the other point, marriage predates Christianity (Jesus went to a wedding, before he'd started his ministry, remember), so you can't talk of the roots of marriage being in Christianity.

You are of course entitled to your views - we are also entitled to disagree with you (no disrespect intended here btw)

Thanks- you said it better than I did. I do get a bit defensive when it comes to this stuff. Hope you guys understand why.

[davidjearly]

If you don't understand the need for the attitude, then you need to try walking in someone else's shoes sometime. Maybe then you'll get it.

Not if it is something I disagree with.

Sure- the church has no obligation to marry any same sex couple, that will never change. But some do. You cannot deny that. I just showed you one, there are more.

But that isn't what this thread is about, This thread is about everyone, not just what Christians believe. It's big country we have here, and not everyone is like you. Therefore, laws should be made to be as universal as possible, benefitting as many people as possible, not just Christians. As hard as it may be for you to understand, Christianity does not own marriage.

Chrisitianity might not own marriage, but homosexuality is still unholy in the eyes of many Abrahamic religions. You can't make a universal law when it is going to cover people over many different religions. This is why there is NOTHING wrong with the current practice of acknowledgment of same-sex marriages being an independent thing for each church to decide upon. It should not be formally recognised by the government as anything other than a civil partnership.

Again, you can believe what you want, but your beliefs end where my rights begin.

Not to me they don't.

[leekohler]

Not if it is something I disagree with.



Chrisitianity might not own marriage, but homosexuality is still unholy in the eyes of many Abrahamic religions. You can't make a universal law when it is going to cover people over many different religions. This is why there is NOTHING wrong with the current practice of acknowledgment of same-sex marriages being an independent thing for each church to decide upon. It should not be formally recognised by the government as anything other than a civil partnership.



Not to me they don't.

Wow- so right now you're telling me that:

1. You don't believe in freedom
2. That you advocate a theocratic state in the US so that no law can ever be made that might be counter to certain people's type of Christian beliefs.
3. That your rights are more important than others'.

Do I have that about right?

[Naimfan]

In other words, you don't have the right to a religion, the government simply doesn't have the right to create one.

Not quite. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing or favoring/disfavoring a particular religion, and it bars the government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The point is that the Constitution does not grant rights to the people--far from it. Rather, the people establish the Constitution to create a system of government with limited powers.

One of the crucial concepts in writing the Constitution was that man has a body or reservoir of rights. Some of those rights are subject to regulation by the government by virtue of the Constitution being ratified; others, including the right to practice whatever religion one chose, were not to be. (Of course, the question of what constitutes a "religion" is nowhere defined in the Constitution.)

In other words:

"The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs."

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/10084res20020304.html

[davidjearly]

Wow- so right now you're telling me that:

1. You don't believe in Freedom
2. That you advocate a theocratic state in the US so that no law can ever be made that might be counter to certain people's type of Christian beliefs.
3. That your rights are more important than others'.

Do I have that about right?

No.

Not at one point did I make suggestions towards points 1 or 3. This thread was started asking for peoples viewpoints. I gave mine. Clearly, you want a heated argument, and I for one am not going to give you one.

In a way, you are being very hypocritical. On one hand, you say that people who can't accept same-sex marriages are narrow minded, yet on the other hand, you fail to respect those individual who may feel differently to yourself - that in itself is narrow-minded.

[leekohler]

No.

Not at one point did I make suggestions towards points 1 or 3. This thread was started asking for peoples viewpoints. I gave mine. Clearly, you want a heated argument, and I for one am not going to give you one.

In a way, you are being very hypocritical. On one hand, you say that people who can't accept same-sex marriages are narrow minded, yet on the other hand, you fail to respect those individual who may feel differently to yourself - that in itself is narrow-minded.

I never said that. You can think and believe whatever it is that you want. I've said that already. However, you have clearly stated that you feel your beliefs should take precedent over my rights. That's where I got irritated. You would too. I'm sorry if you can't get that.

[davidjearly]

I never said that. You can think and believe whatever it is that you want. I've said that already. However, you have clearly stated that you feel your beliefs should take precedent over my rights. That's where I got irritated. You would too. I'm sorry if you can't get that.

My beliefs are exactly that. This has nothing to do with your rights, other than that I don't believe this is a right of yours anyway.

[atszyman]

My beliefs are exactly that. This has nothing to do with your rights, other than that I don't believe this is a right of yours anyway.

So if this country suddenly came under majority control that decided Christians couldn't get married you wouldn't fight for the right to have some sort of legal status with the one you love?

[CalBoy]

I don't think anyone wants to compel a church to perform such a ceremony - merely that it should be accorded the same legal status (and name) as marriage between man and woman.

On the other point, marriage predates Christianity (Jesus went to a wedding, before he'd started his ministry, remember), so you can't talk of the roots of marriage being in Christianity.

You are of course entitled to your views - we are also entitled to disagree with you (no disrespect intended here btw)
Excellent post. Couldn't have said it better myself.:)
Hope you guys understand why.
We do:)
Wow- so right now you're telling me that:

1. You don't believe in freedom
2. That you advocate a theocratic state in the US so that no law can ever be made that might be counter to certain people's type of Christian beliefs.
3. That your rights are more important than others'.

Do I have that about right?
Yes I think you summed up his "argument" fairly well.
This thread was started asking for peoples viewpoints.
I actually asked for reasons/arguments in my OP, not viewpoints. If you can present a logical, coherent argument for opposing same-sex marriage, then participate. All you've done thus far is insist that because you believe in something, you have the right to deny others happiness and equality. Those aren't arguments, they are examples of some of the worst kind of bigotry.
My beliefs are exactly that. This has nothing to do with your rights, other than that I don't believe this is a right of yours anyway.

It has everything to do with the rights of others. There are plenty of religions outside of the Judaism, Christianity, Islamic continuum. In fact, 50% of the world does not adhere to any of these religions. It's quite short sited of you to assume that your narrow view points are worthy of legal merit simply "because."

[hulugu]

...Chrisitianity might not own marriage, but homosexuality is still unholy in the eyes of many Abrahamic religions. You can't make a universal law when it is going to cover people over many different religions. This is why there is NOTHING wrong with the current practice of acknowledgment of same-sex marriages being an independent thing for each church to decide upon. It should not be formally recognised by the government as anything other than a civil partnership.


No.

Not at one point did I make suggestions towards points 1 or 3. This thread was started asking for peoples viewpoints. I gave mine. Clearly, you want a heated argument, and I for one am not going to give you one.

In a way, you are being very hypocritical. On one hand, you say that people who can't accept same-sex marriages are narrow minded, yet on the other hand, you fail to respect those individual who may feel differently to yourself - that in itself is narrow-minded.

What about leekholer's No. 2? It's interesting that you ignored this particular argument, in part, I believe because you agree with it. However, the Christian church and the US government are two separate entities. While the US government can make it legal to serve meat on Fridays, this is no way entails that churches have to serve cheeseburgers.

As for marriage, Christian churches will not be required to hold gay marriages in the church, and yet gay people can still be married. The two situations are entirely unconnected except in the eyes of Christians who don't seem to understand that the church and the government are not the same thing.

Furthermore, the Church's considers marriage a sacrament, the government a legal contract, these are already different relationships that have been retained without harm to either. The idea that a 'special' contract could be created just for gay people singles them out in an unfair way.

[Naimfan]

What about leekholer's No. 2? It's interesting that you ignored this particular argument

With all due respect, that is not an argument. Nor, for that matter, are the others. They are simply an attempt to put words in someone elses mouth (so to speak, of course). Lee offered an interpretation of what David said, which David says is incorrect.

[leekohler]

With all due respect, that is not an argument. Nor, for that matter, are the others. They are simply an attempt to put words in someone elses mouth (so to speak, of course). Lee offered an interpretation of what David said, which David says is incorrect.

Excuse me? No they weren't. He never denied what I said in my earlier post part 2:


That you advocate a theocratic state in the US so that no law can ever be made that might be counter to certain people's type of Christian beliefs.

If you don't think that's an argument for a state established religion, I don't know what is. Which BTW- david felt was a correct interpretation. After all, he didn't deny it.

[hulugu]

With all due respect, that is not an argument. Nor, for that matter, are the others. They are simply an attempt to put words in someone elses mouth (so to speak, of course). Lee offered an interpretation of what David said, which David says is incorrect.

I don't think that David did state what he thought about leekholer's point, which I still think is interesting. I'd actually like to hear what David thinks about the separation of church and state because his arguements thus far (in my own interpretation) have tended towards what I believe is a misunderstanding between church law and civil law.

I'm merely trying to engage the guy because I'm interested, not because I'm trying to bait him or put words in his mouth.

[CalBoy]

With all due respect, that is not an argument. Nor, for that matter, are the others. They are simply an attempt to put words in someone elses mouth (so to speak, of course). Lee offered an interpretation of what David said, which David says is incorrect.

Nonetheless, it seems that David is saying that his point of view is entirely dependent upon what the church says is right, not what he reasons is right. As I pointed out before, the church has considered many things "morally wrong" in the past, but those things are now viewed as common place, and the church adapted because it understood that people had an evolved sense of what is acceptable. Same-sex marriage is simply one of those issues. The church will eventually realize that alienating 10% of its members makes no sense, and will adapt to the times.

[leekohler]

My beliefs are exactly that. This has nothing to do with your rights, other than that I don't believe this is a right of yours anyway.

At least you're honest about your bigotry. Thank you for that. Now how about you back that view with some reason? So far, all you've been able to say is that it's "against your beliefs". That's not good enough.

[leekohler]

I don't think that David did state what he thought about leekholer's point, which I still think is interesting. I'd actually like to hear what David thinks about the separation of church and state because his arguements thus far (in my own interpretation) have tended towards what I believe is a misunderstanding between church law and civil law.

I'm merely trying to engage the guy because I'm interested, not because I'm trying to bait him or put words in his mouth.

It should be obvious to you by now that he thinks there should be no separation between church and state. He didn't deny what I said in #2 of my post. He most likely feels that the US should be run by Biblical law.

[Naimfan]

Excuse me? No they weren't. He never denied what I said in my earlier post part 2:


Lee--Are you familiar with the idea that silence is not assent? Besides which, David did say "No" when you said "Do I have that about right?" when responding to your original (I think) listing of 3 items. The denial covers all three; the failure to later expand does not detract from the denial that you "have that about right."

In looking back through David's postings, I think the real weakness in his position is his implicit assumption that there is a monolithic Christian church, when there is no such thing (as I think most of us here realize).

[Naimfan]

So far, all you've been all to say is that it's "against your beliefs". That's not good enough.

Now there's something I agree with completely!

[Rodimus Prime]

I still working on why everyone is so dead set calling same sex unions marriages and will not accept them being called civil unions if the only difference between the 2 is the name.

Of course you all can continue to fight the uphill battle and face a much stronger religious oppositions. I would say go for civil unions first in term the law uses because it is easier. Take it one step at a time and try to avoid or at the very least weaken the fight.

I have a problem with the term marriage being used but that is from a religious background. I have no problem with civil unions. And yes I know I am splitting hairs but if they have the same legal protections and what not I do not see what the problem is.

[solvs]

Also the Churches have every right not to do marriages of same sex because they do have religious grounds against it (no arguing around that point).
They can already refuse to marry someone, that won't change, so that has nothing to do with anything in this case.

Its to establish paternity of any children.

It's far more than that. Again, nothing to do with the situation. As many examples have been given for relationships that have nothing to do with paternity. Besides, marriage doesn't define paternity. Paternity defines paternity.

As I said my problem is with changing the definitions arbitrarily. New concept, new word please.
It's the same legal contract and emotional partnership. Just as interracial and interfaith marriage was, which was also disputed for the same reasons. The only difference is that it's 2 men or 2 women instead of 1 of each. Everything else is exactly the same.

My point is that the rules are the same for everyone.
Unless you'd rather marry someone of the same sex.

What if someone is involved in a religion that allows same-sex marriages and their same-sex marriage is performed in a church? Could they then call themselves married or do they still not get to use the term simply because they are the same sex?
Something I often bring up in this argument. Some religions are ok with homosexuality. I've often wondered why this hasn't been brought up already, that it hasn't become a freedom of religion issue. Some people seem to think since they're religion is against it, everyone else has to be. But no one is forcing anyone to get gay married, why is it ok that they are forcing others not to be able to because they have a problem with it.

It doesn't affect me at all, so I don't really care.

And the polygamy/bestiality/pedophilia argument is ridiculous. 3 people can't make a 2 person legal contract. Animals can't make a legal contract. Children aren't consenting adults. This is just stupid.

[imac/cheese]

On the other point, marriage predates Christianity (Jesus went to a wedding, before he'd started his ministry, remember), so you can't talk of the roots of marriage being in Christianity.

Though I do not disagree with your other points, I will say that Christianity does not begin with Christ's ministry. Christianity begins with Genesis and the creation of the heavens and earth. Christ was present with the Father when He created the world. The term Christians was not used until after Christ's death but our belief system is far older even if it was unknown to most people until Christ came to earth and was crucified. Christians believe that God created marriage when he created Adam and Eve.

[aquajet]

As I said my problem is with changing the definitions arbitrarily. New concept, new word please.

I have to disagree with the notion that we gay people are somehow trying to change the definition of marriage. We're merely expanding it to include ourselves.

Regardless, the change is hardly arbitrary. It is a response to the practical issues with a relationship which isn't guaranteed the same legal protections as straight relationships.

You're also going to have to accept the fact that language is constantly evolving, as we can clearly see in the case of the word "marriage".



In a way, you are being very hypocritical. On one hand, you say that people who can't accept same-sex marriages are narrow minded, yet on the other hand, you fail to respect those individual who may feel differently to yourself - that in itself is narrow-minded.

We are all free to our opinions, of course. However, Lee's, mine and others' position has no direct impact on your life or relationship. We do not seek to govern your life. Your position however, trying to compartmentalize the legal protections for gay and straight relationships, opens the possiblilty of inequalities. Your position potentially has a direct impact on the lives of people you don't know. In light of this, calling Lee hypocritical and narrow-minded because he sharply criticises your position is both extremely cynical and disingenuous.

[Naimfan]

I have to disagree with the notion that we gay people are somehow trying to change the definition of marriage. We're merely expanding it to include ourselves.

Regardless, the change is hardly arbitrary. It is a response to the practical issues with a relationship which isn't guaranteed the same legal protections as straight relationships.

You're also going to have to accept the fact that language is constantly evolving, as we can clearly see in the case of the word "marriage".


OK, you're wrong to say that you're not trying to "change" the definition of marriage. "[M]erely expanding" is a "change." ;)

The issue I see is that gay people are denied the same legal protections, benefits, and costs as straight people. That is absurd. If people like David want to call it something else, let them. The key is to provide legal equality, which I think must include use of the word marriage.

[Genghis Khan]

i can't believe everyone has missed the obvious

marriage is an idea of religion (the major ones like christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hindi etc)...therefore, it is their right to decide who may get 'married'


also, on a more fundamental scale...homosexuality is the second biggest theat to human continuity...the first being someone like bush in the white house


what strikes me as odd about the 'gay' debate is that everyone 'for' thinks that they're fighting for 'equal rights'...but blindly...only insisting EVERYONE deserves equality

that is a false ideaology, there are caveats to this...e.g. men should not be given the right to give birth



now, explaining marriage...the purpose of marriage is to produce children ('partners' can remain just that). now, if homosexuals are allowed to adopt children, the children will grow up with only a single sexes view...and a child needs to grow up with a male and female role model, which conincedently is why broken homes are so bad (beleive it or not, but the sexes are different, as witnessed by they having different names). hence homosexuals can't raise children properly, therefore marriage is wasted on them.


now, i know i can't change the world...but i do wish that homosexuals wouldn't campaign for right to marriage, when they can't possibly fulfil the tasks of marriage

[yg17]

i can't believe everyone has missed the obvious

marriage is an idea of religion (the major ones like christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hindi etc)...therefore, it is their right to decide who may get 'married'


also, on a more fundamental scale...homosexuality is the second biggest theat to human continuity...the first being someone like bush in the white house


what strikes me as odd about the 'gay' debate is that everyone 'for' thinks that they're fighting for 'equal rights'...but blindly...only insisting EVERYONE deserves equality

that is a false ideaology, there are caveats to this...e.g. men should not be given the right to give birth



now, explaining marriage...the purpose of marriage is to produce children ('partners' can remain just that). now, if homosexuals are allowed to adopt children, the children will grow up with only a single sexes view...and a child needs to grow up with a male and female role model, which conincedently is why broken homes are so bad (beleive it or not, but the sexes are different, as witnessed by they having different names). hence homosexuals can't raise children properly, therefore marriage is wasted on them.


now, i know i can't change the world...but i do wish that homosexuals wouldn't campaign for right to marriage, when they can't possibly fulfil the tasks of marriage


So a man and a woman, who either don't want kids, or one of them can't have children due to some medical reason, shouldn't be allowed to get married?

[Genghis Khan]

did you understand what i wrote?

marriage, in laymans terms, is for a man and woman who want to raise children

therefore adoption or any other method is alright

[yg17]

did you understand what i wrote?

marriage, in laymans terms, is for a man and woman who want to raise children

therefore adoption or any other method is alright

Yes, I understood it just fine. So what if they don't want children? Adopted or their own? They should be denied marriage for that reason?

[Naimfan]

I can only HOPE you wrote that with tongue firmly in cheek? No? I was afraid of that......

i can't believe everyone has missed the obvious

marriage is an idea of religion (the major ones like christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hindi etc)...therefore, it is their right to decide who may get 'married'


also, on a more fundamental scale...homosexuality is the second biggest theat to human continuity...the first being someone like bush in the white house


what strikes me as odd about the 'gay' debate is that everyone 'for' thinks that they're fighting for 'equal rights'...but blindly...only insisting EVERYONE deserves equality

that is a false ideaology, there are caveats to this...e.g. men should not be given the right to give birth



now, explaining marriage...the purpose of marriage is to produce children ('partners' can remain just that). now, if homosexuals are allowed to adopt children, the children will grow up with only a single sexes view...and a child needs to grow up with a male and female role model, which conincedently is why broken homes are so bad (beleive it or not, but the sexes are different, as witnessed by they having different names). hence homosexuals can't raise children properly, therefore marriage is wasted on them.


now, i know i can't change the world...but i do wish that homosexuals wouldn't campaign for right to marriage, when they can't possibly fulfil the tasks of marriage

[Naimfan]

My opinion of the University of Melbourne just went MAJORLY downhill.

did you understand what i wrote?


Actually, given how you write, I hope I didn't!

[Blue Velvet]

i can't believe everyone has missed the obvious


Your definition of the 'tasks of marriage' is absurdly narrow, and your beliefs about gay adoption are preposterously ridiculous. There's no evidence that both male and female role-models for a child have to be parents... I know plenty of single parents and gay couples bringing up children with no harm to them whatsoever.

And marriage is a legal contract that doesn't have to involve any religion at all. So, it's not that anyone is forgetting the 'obvious', it's just that the 'obvious' is not that obvious, not even based on the facts, and instead is merely shorthand for your gut beliefs.

[Genghis Khan]

Actually, given how you write, I hope I didn't!

excellent rebuttal!...totally justifying...

My opinion of the University of Melbourne just went MAJORLY downhill.



Your definition of the 'tasks of marriage' is absurdly narrow, and your beliefs about gay adoption are preposterously ridiculous. There's no evidence that both male and female role-models for a child have to be parents... I know plenty of single parents and gay couples bringing up children with no harm to them whatsoever.

And marriage is a legal contract that doesn't have to involve any religion at all. So, it's not that anyone is forgetting the 'obvious', it's just that the 'obvious' is not that obvious, not even based on the facts, and instead is merely shorthand for your gut beliefs.

1) most of that was just a personal attack on me
2) do you seriously think that because you've seen kids smile that they're being raised alright?
3) marriage is an idea of religion, adopted by countries...like it or not


also, i can see i'm preaching to the faithless here...there is nothing i can so to convince any of you otherwise, making this thread a conglomoration of supporters of gay rights congratulating eachother on being new age thinkers

have fun:)

[killerrobot]

@OP
Is there any GOOD reason that you asked this question?

Everyones' GOOD reasons mean nothing to someone who doesn't believe the the same thing.

[Genghis Khan]

here here!

[leekohler]

excellent rebuttal!...totally justifying...






1) most of that was just a personal attack on me
2) do you seriously think that because you've seen kids smile that they're being raised alright?
3) marriage is an idea of religion, adopted by countries...like it or not


also, i can see i'm preaching to the faithless here...there is nothing i can so to convince any of you otherwise, making this thread a conglomoration of supporters of gay rights congratulating eachother on being new age thinkers

have fun:)

You presented no evidence whatsoever for your views. You haven't even really made an argument, which is what this thread is about in the first place.

I can also see from your last post that you are neither interested in learning more about that which you are apparently so ignorant.

So yeah, take your ball and go home. Come back sometime when you are actually interested in discussing the subject, rather than just presenting your unsubstantiated opinion and running away.

[Naimfan]

excellent rebuttal!...totally justifying...

1) most of that was just a personal attack on me
2) do you seriously think that because you've seen kids smile that they're being raised alright?
3) marriage is an idea of religion, adopted by countries...like it or not


also, i can see i'm preaching to the faithless here...there is nothing i can so to convince any of you otherwise, making this thread a conglomoration of supporters of gay rights congratulating eachother on being new age thinkers

have fun:)

I must have missed the self-congratulatory portion of this thread.

Also, given how poor your grammar and spelling are, it IS difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Not to mention that your post is so full of non-sequiturs and irrelevance that any concept you may be trying to state is hopelessly muddled.

Have you taken a course on basic composition and grammar yet? No? I suggest you enroll in one forthwith!

[Dagless]

I'm not opposed to it per se, but as I've grown up in a typical white middleclass I've been brought up to see marriage as a religious based institution to bond a male and female. A same sex marriage, or other legal bond, sounds just right though.

But there is a lack of experience on my behalf, but it's just what I've been brought up seeing. And it will take a few years of branching out of my community to fully open my min. So, with myself not fully wanting to say this for fear of retaliation, I'm just going to say - tradition. Which is where everyone else will have different experiences. For the moment this is mine.

[Blue Velvet]

1) most of that was just a personal attack on me
2) do you seriously think that because you've seen kids smile that they're being raised alright?
3) marriage is an idea of religion, adopted by countries...like it or not


1) No, it was an attack on your beliefs, your post. Not you.

2) Through age differences alone plus a broader experience of different cultures, I am fairly sure I know a bit more about parenting, parents and children than you do, including my own nephew and the children of friends I've known for over 30 years.

3) Marriage is not an idea of religion, whether you say 'like it or not'. It is possible to get married without any religious content. Marriages have taken place all over the world and historically without religion; Confucian China for example.

And new age? You've got to be kidding.

[leekohler]

I'm not opposed to it per se, but as I've grown up in a typical white middleclass I've been brought up to see marriage as a religious based institution to bond a male and female. A same sex marriage, or other legal bond, sounds just right though.

But there is a lack of experience on my behalf, but it's just what I've been brought up seeing. And it will take a few years of branching out of my community to fully open my min. So, with myself not fully wanting to say this for fear of retaliation, I'm just going to say - tradition. Which is where everyone else will have different experiences. For the moment this is mine.

Ok jimmi, if you weren't so damn cute I'd verbally beat the crap out of you right now. ;) Just kidding. :) Don't be offended. :D

But seriously, tradition isn't always a good argument either. Think about other traditions that weren't so good.

[Naimfan]

And new age? You've got to be kidding.

Sadly, I don't think he is...

[Genghis Khan]

marriage is an idea of religion (the major ones like christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hindi etc)...therefore, it is their right to decide who may get 'married'

that's just common knowledge, and if you're arguing with that, good day to you

also, on a more fundamental scale...homosexuality is the second biggest theat to human continuity...the first being someone like bush in the white house


did you know that if 51% of the world became homosexual, humans would soon die out?


what strikes me as odd about the 'gay' debate is that everyone 'for' thinks that they're fighting for 'equal rights'...but blindly...only insisting EVERYONE deserves equality

now...am i right in saying that supporters of gay rights are supporting freedom and equality? yes
now what they're seeking are the rights that, for millenia, have been bestowed upon a man and a woman who 95% of the time have children


i then proceded to explain the function of marriage from a religious point-of-view



also, this is a moral discussion, which means you cannot support your case with statistics, or evidence as you say,


You haven't even really made an argument, which is what this thread is about in the first plac

in fact i did
i do wish that homosexuals wouldn't campaign for right to marriage,
a bit weakly stated i agree, but i still had one


I can also see from your last post that you are neither interested in learning more about that which are apparently so ignorant.
so now that i've demonstrated my views on the issue, it seems it is you who is close-minded
i would also venture so far as to say you are ignorant of christianities objection to homosexuality


So yeah, take your ball and go home. Come back sometime when you are actually interested in discussing the subject, rather than just presenting your unsubstantiated opinion and running away.

well, when i'm the only one against the issue, i find it very tiring to argue with all you people, especially as i never did debating
you however can throw abuse at me...the next can can maybe rebut something i say...but so far, all i've seen is personal attacks

[Naimfan]

did you know that if 51% of the world became homosexual, humans would soon die out?

...who 95% of the time have children...

also, this is a moral discussion, which means you cannot support your case with statistics, or evidence as you say,

i would also venture so far as to say you are ignorant of christianities objection to homosexuality


OK, so we can throw out your statistics? Just checking....

And what of the Christian churches that accept homosexuality?

[Genghis Khan]

i do believe they are in america and don't count

but seriously...the pope is the one to talk to about that...he's really the leader of christianity (those who split from him kinda lost the plot)

[Blue Velvet]

i do believe they are in america and don't count

Ah, of course...

[arkitect]

i do believe they are in america and don't count

but seriously...the pope is the one to talk to about that...he's really the leader of christianity (those who split from him kinda lost the plot)

Wow... you're seriously hardcore in your beliefs eh? How does such a mediæval mindset survive in the 21st century?

Astonishing…

[Shotglass]

This whole thread was pro-gay and anti-conservative from the beginning on. Just look at the title. Whatever people will say, you'll just go "Uhm, I believe I said GOOD reason. Get out!" - and you seriously believe this is a proper discussion? If you want to discuss homosexuality, open a topic asking for people's opinions, hear them out, and comment. What you're doing is just basically yelling at conservatives.

[Blue Velvet]

This whole thread was pro-gay and anti-conservative from the beginning on.


Not so much anti-conservative, but since very few people have any actually good arguments, rather than beliefs, it was doomed to turn out that way.

It is possible to be conservative and gay; go ask the Log Cabin Republicans, poor sods.

[imac/cheese]

did you know that if 51% of the world became homosexual, humans would soon die out?

I am a bit confused on this statistic. I can only see that being true if the 51% were all the same sex leaving no other person of that sex to mate with the other sex that was still straight. If 51% of our population were unable to breed, the rest would continue to reproduce and human population would go on. Our future population would be lower but I don't see how we would soon die out.

[Naimfan]

Cheese--

Never mind that--we aren't allowed to use statistics or evidence...

:D

[leekohler]

This whole thread was pro-gay and anti-conservative from the beginning on. Just look at the title. Whatever people will say, you'll just go "Uhm, I believe I said GOOD reason. Get out!" - and you seriously believe this is a proper discussion? If you want to discuss homosexuality, open a topic asking for people's opinions, hear them out, and comment. What you're doing is just basically yelling at conservatives.

No- what we were doing was trying get a rational explanation out of them for why they believe their beliefs, rather than facts, should dictate law in the US. We never got one, so we got frustrated. Belief is simply not something that you can use to justify a law. If that were the case, we could simply sentence someone to death because we "believed" they were guilty.

that's just common knowledge, and if you're arguing with that, good day to you



No, it isn't. Buddhism is most definitely not anti-gay. Go ask the Dalai Lama. Many Christian churches also aren't, I linked to just one of them earlier.



did you know that if 51% of the world became homosexual, humans would soon die out?

51% of the population isn't going to suddenly turn gay. I don't know where you get this from.



also, this is a moral discussion, which means you cannot support your case with statistics, or evidence as you say,

This is a legal discussion. You most certainly need evidence to back up your claims. And even it if it were purely a "moral" discussion, you still need to demonstrate why something is harmful, which you haven't done.




so now that i've demonstrated my views on the issue, it seems it is you who is close-minded
i would also venture so far as to say you are ignorant of christianities objection to homosexuality

Oh I'm quite familiar with it, thank you. I had a lot of fun having my "Christian" family cut me off just because I was honest with them about who I am.




well, when i'm the only one against the issue, i find it very tiring to argue with all you people, especially as i never did debating
you however can throw abuse at me...the next can can maybe rebut something i say...but so far, all i've seen is personal attacks

When you start using facts, rather than your own personal beliefs to justify denial of rights, you'll get a lot further. The problem is, the facts are stacked against you.

[Rodimus Prime]

No- what we were doing was trying get a rational explanation out of them for why they believe their beliefs, rather than facts, should dictate law in the US. We never got one, so we got frustrated. Belief is simply not something that you can use to justify a law. If that were the case, we could simply sentence someone to death because we "believed" they were guilty.

I going to punch some holes in that argument because almost all of our laws are based on some belief.
I want a good reason why I can not cut some one hands off who steals from me. Why is that cruel and unusual punishment. Why can not I not murder some one because they pissed me off. I want something other than belief.

I would not use that argument.
Based on rashal facts it is figured most married couples are going to have kids and marriage is for raising kids. Gay couples it is impossible for them to have kids. (yes you have a handful of male female couples who do not have kids but there is an off chance that they could have them)

[leekohler]

I going to punch some holes in that argument because almost all of our laws are based on some belief.
I want a good reason why I can not cut some one hands off who steals from me. Why is that cruel and unusual punishment. Why can not I not murder some one because they pissed me off. I want something other than belief.

Huh? Are you kidding me? Both of those things you presented are resulting in measurable harm, obviously the harm you are inflicting of the perpetrator far outweighs the harm done to you. That was good try though. Gay people geting married harms no one.

[imac/cheese]

Here are the true reasons that I see people are against same sex marriage:

1. One does not think homosexuality is moral and to allow marriage of homosexuals would be promoting immoral behavior and legitimizing homosexuality.

2. One does not like the idea of two gay people using the same term for their relationship that one has with his/her own spouse. This might be based tradition, religion, semantics, whatever.

3. Since God ordained marriage as a sacrament between man and woman it is wrong to allow homosexuals to marry.

All of these arguments might work from a religious perspective but I have not seen any good arguments about why the United States should base their definition of marriage on Christianity instead of equality. Our country was founded on freedom of religion. I fully believe that if people want to follow a religion they should be free to do so and no one in the US should be denied access to their own religion because others have differeing beliefs. Our personal beliefs should also not be used to force others through our legal system to believe or behave in the ways we want them to if their behavior is not hurting anyone.

[j26]

Though I do not disagree with your other points, I will say that Christianity does not begin with Christ's ministry. Christianity begins with Genesis and the creation of the heavens and earth. Christ was present with the Father when He created the world. The term Christians was not used until after Christ's death but our belief system is far older even if it was unknown to most people until Christ came to earth and was crucified. Christians believe that God created marriage when he created Adam and Eve.

I'm going to have to dispute this with you. Christianity is defined as "followers of Christ". On a simple logical basis, Christianity cannot have existed before Christ. You might be referring to the Judeo-Christian family of religions/sects which is different </pedantry>

As regards the religious concept of marriage predating the civil concept, this (http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm) makes interesting reading. It would seem that religion was not really involved in marriage until the ninth century. In addition, this (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html) indicates that the Roman concept of marriage is entirely civil, and in Greece it was a social (not religious) institution. The Christian view of marriage seems comparatively recent, and indeed seems to have been in decline for the last while (French revolution sort of time).

[Rodimus Prime]

Huh? Are you kidding me? Both of those things you presented are resulting in measurable harm, obviously the harm you are inflicting of the perpetrator far outweighs the harm done to you. That was good try though. Gay people geting married harms no one.

the orginal post you quoted is right this tread turned into pro gay right off the bat.

It does not matter what any one says you all will bash it and say it is not a good reason. We gave the reason on why and you all refused to accept them. It always bother me how the gay comminty refused to try to take an easier battle to win to get closer to the goals they want. They seem to refuse to evey try for civil unions as the term. It is one step closer and a hell of a lot easier to win than marriage.
I have yet to get a good reason why that is not an acceptable alternative. As long as you are fighting against the majority religions it is a very strong uphill battle.

[j26]

Here are the true reasons that I see people are against same sex marriage:

1. One does not think homosexuality is moral and to allow marriage of homosexuals would be promoting immoral behavior and legitimizing homosexuality.

2. One does not like the idea of two gay people using the same term for their relationship that one has with his/her own spouse. This might be based tradition, religion, semantics, whatever.

3. Since God ordained marriage as a sacrament between man and woman it is wrong to allow homosexuals to marry.

All of these arguments might work from a religious perspective but I have not seen any good arguments about why the United States should base their definition of marriage on Christianity instead of equality. Our country was founded on freedom of religion. I fully believe that if people want to follow a religion they should be free to do so and no one in the US should be denied access to their own religion because others have differeing beliefs. Our personal beliefs should also not be used to force others through our legal system to believe or behave in the ways we want them to if their behavior is not hurting anyone.

I think you might have missed the floodgates argument - "Everybody will turn into poofters if we let them people marry".

[imac/cheese]

I'm going to have to dispute this with you. Christianity is defined as "followers of Christ". On a simple logical basis, Christianity cannot have existed before Christ. You might be referring to the Judeo-Christian family of religions/sects which is different </pedantry>

From a Christian's perspective, the entire Old Testament points towards the coming of Christ. Though people did not know His name they were still following Him. Of course before Christ came to earth those people were Jews and they called themselves Jews even as Christ himself did. Also, Christ existed long before He was born in a manger. He lived at the Father's side.

[leekohler]

the orginal post you quoted is right this tread turned into pro gay right off the bat.

It does not matter what any one says you all will bash it and say it is not a good reason. We gave the reason on why and you all refused to accept them. It always bother me how the gay comminty refused to try to take an easier battle to win to get closer to the goals they want. They seem to refuse to evey try for civil unions as the term. It is one step closer and a hell of a lot easier to win than marriage.
I have yet to get a good reason why that is not an acceptable alternative. As long as you are fighting against the majority religions it is a very strong uphill battle.

Look, I understand the reasons they try to use. They simply don't hold up from a legal perspective. No church has or will ever have to marry gay people. The government cannot force them to do that. All we are fighting for is equal marriage rights in the eyes of the law, nothing more. And settling for civil unions is not equal, unless they call it civil unions for everyone. If government stopped using the term "marriage" and started using the term "civil unions" for everyone, I'd be all for it.

[j26]

From a Christian's perspective, the entire Old Testament points towards the coming of Christ. Though people did not know His name they were still following Him. Of course before Christ came to earth those people were Jews and they called themselves Jews even as Christ himself did. Also, Christ existed long before He was born in a manger. He lived at the Father's side.

there's a significant population that believes he hasn't come yet, so I'm afraid that argument doesn't hold water. Christians are followers of the particular Messiah as incarnated in Jesus Christ.

[imac/cheese]

there's a significant population that believes he hasn't come yet, so I'm afraid that argument doesn't hold water. Christians are followers of the particular Messiah as incarnated in Jesus Christ.

Of course it holds water; we are talking about the beliefs of Christians, not those who believe in a different Messeah.

[j26]

Of course it holds water; we are talking about the beliefs of Christians, not those who believe in a different Messeah.

Then why are there no saints from before Jesus' life?

Christianity begins with Christ. There are older beliefs and values included, I don't dispute that, but you cannot say that Christianity predates the life of Christ.

Anyway, this is moving seriously off-topic, and getting irrelevant. The issue of marriage being historically a civil and social institution rather than a religious one is far more important one in the context of this thread.

[PlaceofDis]

marriage is an idea of religion (the major ones like christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hindi etc)...therefore, it is their right to decide who may get 'married'


also, on a more fundamental scale...homosexuality is the second biggest theat to human continuity...the first being someone like bush in the white house


what strikes me as odd about the 'gay' debate is that everyone 'for' thinks that they're fighting for 'equal rights'...but blindly...only insisting EVERYONE deserves equality

that is a false ideaology, there are caveats to this...e.g. men should not be given the right to give birth



now, explaining marriage...the purpose of marriage is to produce children ('partners' can remain just that). now, if homosexuals are allowed to adopt children, the children will grow up with only a single sexes view...and a child needs to grow up with a male and female role model, which conincedently is why broken homes are so bad (beleive it or not, but the sexes are different, as witnessed by they having different names). hence homosexuals can't raise children properly, therefore marriage is wasted on them.


now, i know i can't change the world...but i do wish that homosexuals wouldn't campaign for right to marriage, when they can't possibly fulfil the tasks of marriage

well marriage predates all modern religions. and it used to be a legal contract. there even was a thing called a dowry. but we've done away with that. things change. everything changes. its the nature of the world. adapt.

homosexuality isn't going to cause the human race to die out.

according to your faith (i'm guessing christian) everyone does deserve equality and under the law they should as well. how can you say that someone is undeserving of something that is attainable by just about everyone else? there is nothing wrong with equality.

the purpose of marriage used to be to for profit. it was a mutual agreement between two families to give away the daughter for other potential earnings or status.

[atszyman]

did you know that if 51% of the world became homosexual, humans would soon die out?

Only if we forget how artificial insemination works, but even then, gay does not mean infertile.

If the world were 100% gay, it would still be possible for a gay man and a lesbian to conceive and have a child.

The 51% only holds true if gay men NEVER have sex with any women, and gay women NEVER have sex with any man.

[skunk]

Log Cabin Republicans, poor sods.What a very appropriate epithet. :)

[Swarmlord]

<snip>If the world were 100% gay, it would still be possible for a gay man and a lesbian to conceive and have a child.

<snip>

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being gay?:confused:

[skunk]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being gay?:confused:Being gay has a purpose? What would that be? Is it the same as an agenda? :confused:

[leekohler]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being gay?:confused:

And what, pray tell, is the purpose of being gay in swarmlord world?

[PlaceofDis]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being gay?:confused:

there's a reason people are gay?

um no. they just are naturally.

[CalBoy]

Your definition of the 'tasks of marriage' is absurdly narrow, and your beliefs about gay adoption are preposterously ridiculous. There's no evidence that both male and female role-models for a child have to be parents... I know plenty of single parents and gay couples bringing up children with no harm to them whatsoever.

And marriage is a legal contract that doesn't have to involve any religion at all. So, it's not that anyone is forgetting the 'obvious', it's just that the 'obvious' is not that obvious, not even based on the facts, and instead is merely shorthand for your gut beliefs.
Well done BV:)
@OP
Is there any GOOD reason that you asked this question?

Everyones' GOOD reasons mean nothing to someone who doesn't believe the the same thing.
Actually, the goal of thread was to have a rational discussion over whether society had any actual need to deny same-sex marriage. So far, no one has presented any evidence that same-sex marriage would harm society, or would somehow harm portions of society. All we've seen is a lot of posts saying, "this is what I believe" which isn't an argument at all. I was hoping people would move beyond the "this is what I believe" argument and show me some reason why same-sex marriage should be denied based on the effects it will have on society or other groups within society.
You presented no evidence whatsoever for your views. You haven't even really made an argument, which is what this thread is about in the first place.
Thank you for reminding people of that Lee:)
I must have missed the self-congratulatory portion of this thread.

Also, given how poor your grammar and spelling are, it IS difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Not to mention that your post is so full of non-sequiturs and irrelevance that any concept you may be trying to state is hopelessly muddled.

Have you taken a course on basic composition and grammar yet? No? I suggest you enroll in one forthwith!
I think you've found him out:eek::)
1) No, it was an attack on your beliefs, your post. Not you.

2) Through age differences alone plus a broader experience of different cultures, I am fairly sure I know a bit more about parenting, parents and children than you do, including my own nephew and the children of friends I've known for over 30 years.

3) Marriage is not an idea of religion, whether you say 'like it or not'. It is possible to get married without any religious content. Marriages have taken place all over the world and historically without religion; Confucian China for example.

Again, I agree with it all BV. You Brits are just so much more articulate than us Americans:p

that's just common knowledge, and if you're arguing with that, good day to you

Excuse me, but could you repeat that again? I think I saw your fifth grade education fly out the window along with this "common knowledge."

did you know that if 51% of the world became homosexual, humans would soon die out?

Did you know that if 51% of the world was to become sterile the world would die soon? I love how you suffer from the delusion that being gay is a choice:rolleyes:


now what they're seeking are the rights that, for millenia, have been bestowed upon a man and a woman who 95% of the time have children
Really? Isn't it odd that more and more married couples DO NOT have children these days? I suppose we'd better nullify their marriages quickly, before the gays get any bright ideas:rolleyes:



also, this is a moral discussion, which means you cannot support your case with statistics, or evidence as you say,

It's a moral discussion that focuses on whether there will be any negative side-effects to society if same-sex marriage was legalized. Being offended is not a harm. If your religious argument can provide a reason which shows that society will suffer, then we'll have something to talk about.



so now that i've demonstrated my views on the issue, it seems it is you who is close-minded
i would also venture so far as to say you are ignorant of christianities objection to homosexuality

Oh I think we're quite well versed in "Christian" views of homosexuality. Otherwise, I have nothing more to add to your ad hominem fallacy.


well, when i'm the only one against the issue, i find it very tiring to argue with all you people, especially as i never did debating
you however can throw abuse at me...the next can can maybe rebut something i say...but so far, all i've seen is personal attacks
That's right, all we've seen is personal attacks so far: people who attack someone for being gay simply because their religion tells them it's "wrong." So far, I haven't seen any good, logical reason for someone to deny same-sex marriage. All I've seen is beliefs, which are by nature, personal.

This whole thread was pro-gay and anti-conservative from the beginning on. Just look at the title. Whatever people will say, you'll just go "Uhm, I believe I said GOOD reason. Get out!" - and you seriously believe this is a proper discussion? If you want to discuss homosexuality, open a topic asking for people's opinions, hear them out, and comment. What you're doing is just basically yelling at conservatives.
I did create the thread with a pro-gay tilt, but I wanted conservatives to provide me with REASONS not beliefs. So far, not a single conservative has given me a solid reason why same-sex marriage would be bad for society.

Not so much anti-conservative, but since very few people have any actually good arguments, rather than beliefs, it was doomed to turn out that way.

Yes it was doomed to turn out that way. But I didn't want a thread that was merely about "I believe this because my vicar told me so" logic. I wanted some good logical reasons, but as you point out, they don't exist.

[Kernow]

3) Marriage is not an idea of religion, whether you say 'like it or not'. It is possible to get married without any religious content. Marriages have taken place all over the world and historically without religion; Confucian China for example.

Indeed. I was married in a civil ceremony here in the UK and for this you are explicitly forbidden by the registrar to have any religious content in the ceremony, yet there is no distinction between my marriage and a marriage carried out in a church. It is called a marriage, I have the same rights, I have the same marriage certificate.

As religion is not a requirement to get married, I can't see any good reasons for the contract between same-sex couples to be called marriage.

[atszyman]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being gay?:confused:

Have you never seen anyone leave their spouse and kids because they were tired of living a lie?

Most gay people I know personally lost their virginity to the opposite sex.

If the world were 100% gay, I'm pretty sure some governments would step in and encourage "procreational sex" to ensure the survival of the human race and IVF can occur just as easily if all participants are gay...

gay != infertile

If the only reason to keep same sex marriages from happening is for procreation and dual parent households are we going to start forcing widows with children to remarry, or take away their kids to a dual-gender-headed household? Is having or adopting children going to be a pre-requisite for getting married? Are we going to stop the elderly and infertile from marrying (unless they promise to adopt)?

I was raised by a single parent, and don't think I had any greater challenges/hardships growing up than anyone else. I'd also have no problem with my daughter's being raised in a same-sex household should something happen to my wife and I. We've already decided that our kids would go to one of our siblings in this event, but if we didn't have siblings our primary concern would be finding a stable loving household for our daughter's regardless of the gender of those running the house.

[davidjearly]

Ok, so I see my absense has caused quite a slur against me and my views. Let me try and clear things up. In addition, I'd like people to remember that I am not always at my computer, nevermind in a Mac forum.

So if this country suddenly came under majority control that decided Christians couldn't get married you wouldn't fight for the right to have some sort of legal status with the one you love?

No, as I said before, same legal status and privileges are a must for same-sex couples.

I actually asked for reasons/arguments in my OP, not viewpoints. If you can present a logical, coherent argument for opposing same-sex marriage, then participate. All you've done thus far is insist that because you believe in something, you have the right to deny others happiness and equality. Those aren't arguments, they are examples of some of the worst kind of bigotry.

No, I have presented my argument (which is a presentation of a person's viewpoints btw), in a very coherent way. In addition, as I have pointed out many times, I do not want to deny anyone happiness or equality. I think same-sex unions should have the same privileges and legal status as married couples. There is no bigotry involved here, just a lack of attention to what I actually said.

It has everything to do with the rights of others. There are plenty of religions outside of the Judaism, Christianity, Islamic continuum. In fact, 50&#37; of the world does not adhere to any of these religions. It's quite short sited of you to assume that your narrow view points are worthy of legal merit simply "because."

My narrow viewpoints? I think you'll find that there are many people with similar viewpoints. Anyone who is familiar and adheres to the principles of the Christian Bible would agree. The 2001 census of the USA illustrated that 81% of Americans claimed they were Christian. Look it up and try giving more accurate statistics.

With all due respect, that is not an argument. Nor, for that matter, are the others. They are simply an attempt to put words in someone elses mouth (so to speak, of course). Lee offered an interpretation of what David said, which David says is incorrect.

Exactly. And it was incorrect.

Excuse me? No they weren't. He never denied what I said in my earlier post part 2:

If you don't think that's an argument for a state established religion, I don't know what is. Which BTW- david felt was a correct interpretation. After all, he didn't deny it.

Yes I did, see below. I denied everything you said which was a very ignorant, superficial view of what I actually wrote.

At least you're honest about your bigotry. Thank you for that. Now how about you back that view with some reason? So far, all you've been able to say is that it's "against your beliefs". That's not good enough.

My beliefs have been backed by reason, but you fail to understand/accept it. Thats not my problem.

Lee--Are you familiar with the idea that silence is not assent? Besides which, David did say "No" when you said "Do I have that about right?" when responding to your original (I think) listing of 3 items. The denial covers all three; the failure to later expand does not detract from the denial that you "have that about right."

Exactly, yes.

In looking back through David's postings, I think the real weakness in his position is his implicit assumption that there is a monolithic Christian church, when there is no such thing (as I think most of us here realize).

I think no such thing. I just don't think there should be laws make that favour or disfavour ANY partiucular religion. Particularly when it offends the majority of a population.

I still working on why everyone is so dead set calling same sex unions marriages and will not accept them being called civil unions if the only difference between the 2 is the name.

Of course you all can continue to fight the uphill battle and face a much stronger religious oppositions. I would say go for civil unions first in term the law uses because it is easier. Take it one step at a time and try to avoid or at the very least weaken the fight.

I have a problem with the term marriage being used but that is from a religious background. I have no problem with civil unions. And yes I know I am splitting hairs but if they have the same legal protections and what not I do not see what the problem is.

This is my position too and I feel that some people just fail to understand the logic behind it, which has been explained over and over in this thread. The world does not have to adopt to something just because it has became morally acceptable. If it is against a particular groups beliefs, then that is fine.

OK, you're wrong to say that you're not trying to "change" the definition of marriage. "[M]erely expanding" is a "change." ;)

The issue I see is that gay people are denied the same legal protections, benefits, and costs as straight people. That is absurd. If people like David want to call it something else, let them. The key is to provide legal equality, which I think must include use of the word marriage.

I'll try to take the minimal amount of offence here as I assume by 'people like David', you are assuming, 'heterosexual followers of the Christian faith'? I'll let you decide, as you and others have been making your own minds up about me anyway.

As I've said before, it's not about just what I think, it's about the fact that, by definition, same-sex couples cannot get married. Simple. Form a Civil Union? Yes. Have full legal and social equality? Yes.

[davidjearly]

homosexuality isn't going to cause the human race to die out.

No one is saying it definately will cause this. However, in theory, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is possible.

[leekohler]

Ok, so I see my absense has caused quite a slur against me and my views. Let me try and clear things up. In addition, I'd like people to remember that I am not always at my computer, nevermind in a Mac forum.



No, as I said before, same legal status and privileges are a must for same-sex couples.



No, I have presented my argument (which is a presentation of a person's viewpoints btw), in a very coherent way. In addition, as I have pointed out many times, I do not want to deny anyone happiness or equality. I think same-sex unions should have the same privileges and legal status as married couples. There is no bigotry involved here, just a lack of attention to what I actually said.



My narrow viewpoints? I think you'll find that there are many people with similar viewpoints. Anyone who is familiar and adheres to the principles of the Christian Bible would agree. The 2001 census of the USA illustrated that 81&#37; of Americans claimed they were Christian. Look it up and try giving more accurate statistics.



Exactly. And it was incorrect.



Yes I did, see below. I denied everything you said which was a very ignorant, superficial view of what I actually wrote.



My beliefs have been backed by reason, but you fail to understand/accept it. Thats not my problem.

Lee--Are you familiar with the idea that silence is not assent? Besides which, David did say "No" when you said "Do I have that about right?" when responding to your original (I think) listing of 3 items. The denial covers all three; the failure to later expand does not detract from the denial that you "have that about right."

Exactly, yes.



I think no such thing. I just don't think there should be laws make that favour or disfavour ANY partiucular religion. Particularly when it offends the majority of a population.



This is my position too and I feel that some people just fail to understand the logic behind it, which has been explained over and over in this thread. The world does not have to adopt to something just because it has became morally acceptable. If it is against a particular groups beliefs, then that is fine.



I try take the minimal amount of offence here as I assume by 'people like David', you are assuming, 'heterosexual followers of the Christian faith'? I'll let you decide, as you and others have been making your own minds up about me anyway.

As I've said before, it's not about just what I think, it's about the fact that, by definition, same-sex couples cannot get married. Simple. Form a Civil Union? Yes. Have full legal and social equality? Yes.

Somebody else please answer this one? I'm too tired. I could go on and on, but I simply can't.

[yg17]

No one is saying it definately will cause this. However, in theory, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is possible.


Yes, it's possible if everyone turns gay. But how much of the population is gay? Even if it's 10%, which I'm sure is an extremely high number, the human race isn't in danger of going anywhere.

[atszyman]

No, as I said before, same legal status and privileges are a must for same-sex couples.

I know I've been advocating re-naming the legal side of marriage for all couples, but what's wrong with calling it marriage in the legal sense? When someone offers a confession to the police I don't assume they were asking for forgiveness for their sins and the chance to say a few prayers to clean the record, there are many words that have both secular and religious meanings, do we have to re-assign them all?

No one is saying it definately will cause this. However, in theory, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is possible.

As is pumping pollution into our environment, carrying cellphones in our pockets and just having nuclear weapons. From an evolutionary stand point any one of those could kill off the human race by either making the environment inhospitable, making us infertile, baking us to a crisp, or any combination of those. Should we abandon all progress and advancements since, in theory, any progress holds the possibility of wiping out human life?

[Shotglass]

No - what we were doing was trying get a rational explanation out of them for why they believe their beliefs, rather than facts, should dictate law in the US.************. The OP never even mentioned beliefs.

No, it isn't. Buddhism is most definitely not anti-gay. Go ask the Dalai Lama. Many Christian churches also aren't, I linked to just one of them earlier.
Liking members of the same sex is not a sin, sleeping with them is.
I had a lot of fun having my "Christian" family cut me off just because I was honest with them about who I am.The quotation marks are definitely justified. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, and now I know why you hate Christians.

[davidjearly]

I know I've been advocating re-naming the legal side of marriage for all couples, but what's wrong with calling it marriage in the legal sense? When someone offers a confession to the police I don't assume they were asking for forgiveness for their sins and the chance to say a few prayers to clean the record, there are many words that have both secular and religious meanings, do we have to re-assign them all?...

I'm trying my upmost to be clear here. This is just my opinion/way of thinking/ideology/beliefs. The only thing wrong with it, is the fact, that homosexuality is a sin in many Abrahamic religions. Therefore to draw a correllation to homosexuality and marriage (as it is defined in Abrahamic religion), is a complete paradox.

[atszyman]

what strikes me as odd about the 'gay' debate is that everyone 'for' thinks that they're fighting for 'equal rights'...but blindly...only insisting EVERYONE deserves equality

that is a false ideaology, there are caveats to this...e.g. men should not be given the right to give birth

I'm confused here...

We shouldn't be given the right to do something that is currently biologically impossible?

That's like telling me I can't have the right to inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen.

Another thought...

Isn't more than half of the world's population female? Does this mean we're breeding ourselves out of existence?

[leekohler]

************. The OP never even mentioned beliefs.

And religious beliefs should be used to make law in the US? Do you really think that?


Liking members of the same sex is not a sin, sleeping with them is.

Again, that is a religious belief, not a fact.


The quotation marks are definitely justified. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, and now I know why you hate Christians.

They were. They're over it now. It took many years though.

And I don't hate Christians. Got lots of them for friends. But those people don't insist that their religioin should be used to decide law.

[Rodimus Prime]

Look, I understand the reasons they try to use. They simply don't hold up from a legal perspective. No church has or will ever have to marry gay people. The government cannot force them to do that. All we are fighting for is equal marriage rights in the eyes of the law, nothing more. And settling for civil unions is not equal, unless they call it civil unions for everyone. If government stopped using the term "marriage" and started using the term "civil unions" for everyone, I'd be all for it.

again I ask what would the difference be beside the term used. Lets see you get the same legal advantages of being marriage.

You failed to tell me a logical reason what the problem with the term being used makes them any different.

[leekohler]

again I ask what would the difference be beside the term used. Lets see you get the same legal advantages of being marriage.

You failed to tell me a logical reason what the problem with the term being used makes them any different.

The term makes a huge difference. It suggests that the two legal arrangements are not the same. It's a "separate but equal" issue. And we all know how well that doesn't work. If it's the same, why would you call it something different?

[.Andy]

No one is saying it definately will cause this. However, in theory, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is possible.
No it's not possible from an evolutionary standpoint. It's only possible from a theoretical standpoint.

[Rodimus Prime]

The term makes a huge difference. It suggests that the two legal arrangements are not the same. It's a "separate but equal" issue. And we all know how well that doesn't work. If it's the same, why would you call it something different?

you would have to explain how this is "seprate but equal" The example you where using for a refrence was talking about school which used money.

In this system lets see the term makes no difference. Also I see them as 2 very different legal arrangements. The legal rights are the same, legal protection is the same.

as for calling it different if you do not agree with the last reason it is because it is an easier battle to win. Worry the term after you get the other legal rights. But hey who am trying to explain that trying to lessen the fight against religious orginization is a good idea. I mean you are dead set on trying to fight them head on. Enjoy the near impossible fight ahead of you.

[Naimfan]

I think no such thing. I just don't think there should be laws make that favour or disfavour ANY partiucular religion. Particularly when it offends the majority of a population.

Fair enough, and something I generally agree with.


I'll try to take the minimal amount of offence here as I assume by 'people like David', you are assuming, 'heterosexual followers of the Christian faith'? I'll let you decide, as you and others have been making your own minds up about me anyway.

No offense intended! It appears to me as if you, and Cheese, and others, are operating from the assumption that the Christian faith is united against homosexuality as a matter of basic belief. I don't think that is true, particularly in many of the major American Protestant denominations. While there are undoubtedly Christian denominations that are opposed to homosexuality, there are others that are not. That's why I'm pointing out that it is incorrect to say that gay marriage is against Christian beliefs, because to so claim implies that ALL Christian faiths oppose homosexuality. That's all.

As I've said before, it's not about just what I think, it's about the fact that, by definition, same-sex couples cannot get married. Simple. Form a Civil Union? Yes. Have full legal and social equality? Yes.

Depends on your definition, doesn't it? You can certainly define terms as you wish, but that doesn't mean others can't define them differently. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're defining "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman (there appears to be a religious element as well, but that's not as clear). Others here are defining it as the union of two people of whatever gender. Is that fair?

[leekohler]

you would have to explain how this is "seprate but equal" The example you where using for a refrence was talking about school which used money.

In this system lets see the term makes no difference. Also I see them as 2 very different legal arrangements. The legal rights are the same, legal protection is the same.

as for calling it different if you do not agree with the last reason it is because it is an easier battle to win. Worry the term after you get the other legal rights. But hey who am trying to explain that trying to lessen the fight against religious orginization is a good idea. I mean you are dead set on trying to fight them head on. Enjoy the near impossible fight ahead of you.

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused by your post. Can you rephrase the first two paragraphs?

But hey, I think I can kind of see what you mean. But no, I see no reason to call something different, when it's the same only to placate someone else's uproveable belief system. And the fight is hardly impossible. We'll get there, don't worry. ;)

[davidjearly]

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused by your post. Can you rephrase the first two paragraphs?

But hey, I think I can kind of see what you mean. But no, I see no reason to call something different, when it's the same only to placate someone else's uproveable belief system. And the fight is hardly impossible. We'll get there, don't worry. ;)

You'll get where exactly? The right to form a 'marriage' just like heterosexuals, anywhere in the world including the US? I can't see this being a worldwide reality for quite a long time. Realistically, outwith our generation.

[atszyman]

In this system lets see the term makes no difference. Also I see them as 2 very different legal arrangements. The legal rights are the same, legal protection is the same.

But hey, I think I can kind of see what you mean. But no, I see no reason to call something different, when it's the same only to placate someone else's uproveable belief system. And the fight is hardly impossible. We'll get there, don't worry. ;)

But why bother instituting a "new" term for same-sex couples only. Why not just rename the legal side of marriage for both gay and straight couples. Let religion have the word marriage to twist and distort and everyone who desires the legal protections has the same union. No "separate-but-equal" just the same union which legal protections granted to any two consenting adults.

It has the added benefit of lazy people just calling it marriage and in after a while either everyone will call it marriage and have no issues and the name can be changed back, or "marriage" will become a term rarely spoken in the public context since it will simply be another religious sacrament, like wondering if someone is confirmed or baptized.

[leekohler]

You'll get where exactly? The right to form a 'marriage' just like heterosexuals, anywhere in the world including the US? I can't see this being a worldwide reality for quite a long time. Realistically, outwith our generation.

It's already happened in more than a few countries, including our wise neighbor to the north, Canada. Here's a link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4081999.stm

But why bother instituting a "new" term for same-sex couples only. Why not just rename the legal side of marriage for both gay and straight couples. Let religion have the word marriage to twist and distort and everyone who desires the legal protections has the same union. No "separate-but-equal" just the same union which legal protections granted to any two consenting adults.

It has the added benefit of lazy people just calling it marriage and in after a while either everyone will call it marriage and have no issues and the name can be changed back, or "marriage" will become a term rarely spoken in the public context since it will simply be another religious sacrament, like wondering if someone is confirmed or baptized.

I already said I'd agree to that.

[atszyman]

I already said I'd agree to that.

Sorry, high noise to signal ratio along with lots of bickering make it difficult to recall who has agreed who on any particular point.


This may have led to the first even MEDIOCRE argument against same-sex "marriage."

The term marriage has become so entwined with the identically named religious sacrament that many fail to see the distinction and separation between the legal and religious marriages. Given the inability of many to separate the terms leads to a strong opposition to the idea of same-sex "marriages."

The quickest and fairest way to ensure that all consenting adults receive equal protection under the law would be to eliminate legal marriage all together and replace it with another legal union that establishes all the same rights and privileges of legal marriage but is called by a different name.

All couples currently legally married would automatically be changed over to the new legal union and any two consenting adults would now be eligible to enter into this union and obtain all the rights and privileges provided by the legal union.

Not really an argument against, more of a push for a terminology change to eliminate opposition.

[skunk]

Of course it holds water; we are talking about the beliefs of Christians, not those who believe in a different Messeah.But "Christos" just means "the Anointed One", so it isn't actually a name at all, but a title. [/more pedantry]

[CalBoy]

My narrow viewpoints? I think you'll find that there are many people with similar viewpoints. Anyone who is familiar and adheres to the principles of the Christian Bible would agree. The 2001 census of the USA illustrated that 81% of Americans claimed they were Christian. Look it up and try giving more accurate statistics.

Great, except that I said that 50% of the world.:rolleyes:

Either way, I think I have your argument fairly well summarized: allow the same legal protections to same-sex couples, but don't let them call it marriage. In other words, as a Christian, you believe that you have ownership of that word. I had some bad news for you in that regard however. Doing some background research, I discovered that the church didn't even get involved in marriages until after the 9th Century CE. It seems the tradition of having a priest perform the ceremony began then, after young couples kept coming to see them in order to "bless" the marriage. So, this is proof-positive that the church didn't always have dominion over the word marriage.

[leekohler]

Great, except that I said that 50% of the world.:rolleyes:

Either way, I think I have your argument fairly well summarized: allow the same legal protections to same-sex couples, but don't let them call it marriage. In other words, as a Christian, you believe that you have ownership of that word. I had some bad news for you in that regard however. Doing some background research, I discovered that the church didn't even get involved in marriages until after the 9th Century CE. It seems the tradition of having a priest perform the ceremony began then, after young couples kept coming to see them in order to "bless" the marriage. So, this is proof-positive that the church didn't always have dominion over the word marriage.

Don't let a silly thing like facts get in the way now.

[KingYaba]

I bet it has been mentioned before but in the eyes of a Christian, a "good" argument would be a Biblically-based one.

To anyone familiar with the Bible, what specifically does Jesus say about marriage (because I do not know)? Cite the source please. :)

[Naimfan]

I bet it has been mentioned before but in the eyes of a Christian, a "good" argument would be a Biblically-based one.


OK, I have to respond to this. I'm Presbyterian, which is a mainline Protestant denomination. Accordingly, it is a "Christian" faith, which makes me a "Christian." I say that because I must respectfully disagree with your statement above. To me, a good argument is one that directly addresses the merits of the question or position, is based on factual data, and is based on a thorough consideration of the relevant facts, context, and from a variety of perspectives. In my opinion, quoting the Bible in support of a (non-religious) argument is simply a sign that someone is arguing from faith instead of considering everything else.

I'm not sure why there is a tendency on the part of people to lump "Christians" together and assume that there is a monolithic belief structure. Certainly there is a basic core (the Nicene Creed is a good summation), but to extrapolate that all Christians think the same things is simply....misinformed.

OK. Rant off...

KingYaba--I did not mean to single you out--no offense intended! I apologize if I caused offense.

[KingYaba]

Oh come on... I just want to know what Jesus says about marriage.

[Naimfan]

Oh come on... I just want to know what Jesus says about marriage.

Uh, I'm pretty sure he's all for it..... ;)

[leekohler]

OK, I have to respond to this. I'm Presbyterian, which is a mainline Protestant denomination. Accordingly, it is a "Christian" faith, which makes me a "Christian." I say that because I must respectfully disagree with your statement above. To me, a good argument is one that directly addresses the merits of the question or position, is based on factual data, and is based on a thorough consideration of the relevant facts, context, and from a variety of perspectives. In my opinion, quoting the Bible in support of a (non-religious) argument is simply a sign that someone is arguing from faith instead of considering everything else.

I'm not sure why there is a tendency on the part of people to lump "Christians" together and assume that there is a monolithic belief structure. Certainly there is a basic core (the Nicene Creed is a good summation), but to extrapolate that all Christians think the same things is simply....misinformed.

OK. Rant off...

Oh no- you're quite right. I think the perception is there because we only ever hear from the ones who think everyone should be exactly like them. The media pays attention to them as well because they p*** people off and get people's attention.

[Naimfan]

More seriously, I think it depends a lot on how literally one interprets the New Testament. Coming from a (very) liberal theology, I think of it as a set of principles and not as something to be taken literally word for word.

That said, I think the general thrust is that marriage is a good thing (duh--sorry), that it should not be entered into lightly, and that it does represent a lifelong commitment, absent one of the grounds for divorce mentioned (which are, IIRC, sexual immorality, often claimed to be solely adultery, or a non-believing spouse). One of the main sections is Matthew 19:3-12; the second divorce ground is in 1 Corinthians 7:15 (yes, I had to look those up).

Hope that helps!

[Naimfan]

Oh no- you're quite right. I think the perception is there because we only ever hear from the ones who think everyone should be exactly like them. The media pays attention to them as well because they p*** people off and get people's attention.

In turn, I think you're exactly right. Which means I should perhaps be more expressive, though I prefer to let my actions speak: "My actions make me beautiful, and dignify the flesh."

[leekohler]

In turn, I think you're exactly right. Which means I should perhaps be more expressive, though I prefer to let my actions speak: "My actions make me beautiful, and dignify the flesh."

And really, it seems that Bush has had a lot to do with emboldening that type of person. Sad- he really had a chance to be a great President. Instead he chose to divide the country with controversial issues. It didn't have to be that way.

[CalBoy]

OK, I have to respond to this. I'm Presbyterian, which is a mainline Protestant denomination. Accordingly, it is a "Christian" faith, which makes me a "Christian." I say that because I must respectfully disagree with your statement above. To me, a good argument is one that directly addresses the merits of the question or position, is based on factual data, and is based on a thorough consideration of the relevant facts, context, and from a variety of perspectives. In my opinion, quoting the Bible in support of a (non-religious) argument is simply a sign that someone is arguing from faith instead of considering everything else.

I'm not sure why there is a tendency on the part of people to lump "Christians" together and assume that there is a monolithic belief structure. Certainly there is a basic core (the Nicene Creed is a good summation), but to extrapolate that all Christians think the same things is simply....misinformed.

Great post:)

I do actually have a rebuttal for those Christians who say that same-sex marriage not be allowed because their vicar, pastor, priest, or other religious figure, says so. Corvino pointed this out in his article as well, so I'll simply sum up what he said:

Basically, there have been many things the church has said are wrong in the past, but which we now know is utterly wrong or simply impossible to live without. For example, the church at one time had insisted that the Sun moved around the Earth, not the other way around. If anyone cares to remember the fate of Galileo;) Other examples also exist, such as the ban on loaning money with interest (called usury in the Bible); we know that such a ban in modern times would bring our trillion-dollar economies to a grinding halt. There are other examples as well, such as restrictions on which type of meat to eat on which days, etc. However, hardly anyone follows these rules or takes them seriously anymore. Why? The answer is that pragmatically, we know that the Bible cannot supply all of the daily knowledge we need. We have to remember that when the Bible was written, those rules made perfect sense. However, as we have evolved economically and socially, we need to reexamine many of those rules and ignore the ones which no longer fit into our modern world. The Bible is not an infinite source of wisdom (after all, it was written by humans;)), but it can and does provide lessons about human nature and what we should do in morally difficult times. Trying to use it as a "guide" for our lives makes no sense at all.

So, I'm trying to say that if you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, please understand that religion is not in and of itself, infallible. The most successful institutions are those which adapt and change with the times. Eventually (probably within the next twenty years) churches will be forced to accept same-sex marriage anyway, as a Supreme Court ruling will probably be issued recognizing gay marriage. Some of you doubt this, but if you do some research, you'll find that there is no LEGAL argument against same-sex marriage; all current arguments stem from religious beliefs.

OK, I'm done, and I think I'm going to ask the Mods to wasteland this thread, unless anyone has anything else they'd like to add?:)

[benlee]

I wonder: Can two hermaphradites marry each other?

[Rodimus Prime]

Great post:)

I do actually have a rebuttal for those Christians who say that same-sex marriage not be allowed because their vicar, pastor, priest, or other religious figure, says so. Corvino pointed this out in his article as well, so I'll simply sum up what he said:

Basically, there have been many things the church has said are wrong in the past, but which we now know is utterly wrong or simply impossible to live without. For example, the church at one time had insisted that the Sun moved around the Earth, not the other way around. If anyone cares to remember the fate of Galileo;) Other examples also exist, such as the ban on loaning money with interest (called usury in the Bible); we know that such a ban in modern times would bring our trillion-dollar economies to a grinding halt. There are other examples as well, such as restrictions on which type of meat to eat on which days, etc. However, hardly anyone follows these rules or takes them seriously anymore. Why? The answer is that pragmatically, we know that the Bible cannot supply all of the daily knowledge we need. We have to remember that when the Bible was written, those rules made perfect sense. However, as we have evolved economically and socially, we need to reexamine many of those rules and ignore the ones which no longer fit into our modern world. The Bible is not an infinite source of wisdom (after all, it was written by humans;)), but it can and does provide lessons about human nature and what we should do in morally difficult times. Trying to use it as a "guide" for our lives makes no sense at all.

So, I'm trying to say that if you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, please understand that religion is not in and of itself, infallible. The most successful institutions are those which adapt and change with the times. Eventually (probably within the next twenty years) churches will be forced to accept same-sex marriage anyway, as a Supreme Court ruling will probably be issued recognizing gay marriage. Some of you doubt this, but if you do some research, you'll find that there is no LEGAL argument against same-sex marriage; all current arguments stem from religious beliefs.

OK, I'm done, and I think I'm going to ask the Mods to wasteland this thread, unless anyone has anything else they'd like to add?:)

I might want to point out that a lot of the stuff you pulled saying would not work today (meat and money for example) is from the old testament. Most of those rules do not apply in any more because of the new testament.

I would like to point out that same-sex is still not allowed in the new testament. I know in acts it is stated agaist and I believe a few of the other books. SOrry that i do not know the verse off the top of my head.

[solvs]

The 2001 census of the USA illustrated that 81% of Americans claimed they were Christian.
Ok. And? Not everyone believes the same thing. What about that other 19 or more %? What about the many among them who are also ok with gay marriage?

Besides, that still doesn't answer the question. They can believe what they want. They don't have to get gay married. I know I won't. But other people believe in it. Other people want to get gay married. Doesn't affect you, doesn't affect me. Actually, I take that back, it does affect us. It adds money back into the economy. Both via the wedding, especially if it's extravagant, and via the taxes. But otherwise, it's none of our business.

That's fine if you believe it's wrong, but others don't, and you don't get to tell any of us how to live our lives any more than you would want us to do the same to you were the situation reversed.

[Shotglass]

And religious beliefs should be used to make law in the US? Do you really think that?Nononono. I'm saying that they are sometimes used to make law in the US. btw, I'm not actually from the states, so if any of that stuff I say isn't true, you'll know why ;)
Again, that is a religious belief, not a fact.What I said was about defining sin. Sin only applies to religion. Nobody said it was a fact, I was just trying to make clear what the Bible says about homosexuality (loads of people interpret this in an entirely different way).
They were. They're over it now. It took many years though.Still, it's a horrible thing to do.
And I don't hate Christians. Got lots of them for friends.Kinda reminds me of when people say the N-word, realize that they shouldn't have, and then say "Oh, it's okay, I got loads of black friends". ;)
But those people don't insist that their religion should be used to decide law.Oh, and I do? :)

Out of interest, what do your Christian friends say about your sexual orientation?

[CalBoy]

I might want to point out that a lot of the stuff you pulled saying would not work today (meat and money for example) is from the old testament. Most of those rules do not apply in any more because of the new testament.

I would like to point out that same-sex is still not allowed in the new testament. I know in acts it is stated agaist and I believe a few of the other books. SOrry that i do not know the verse off the top of my head.

Usury is in the Old Testament? Then why were the Jews the only bankers for several centuries in Europe? Surely this would have been more against them than Catholics. Either way, the Old Testament is still part of the Bible, which means that my point about how to use the Bible's teachings is still valid.

[Rodimus Prime]

Usury is in the Old Testament? Then why were the Jews the only bankers for several centuries in Europe? Surely this would have been more against them than Catholics. Either way, the Old Testament is still part of the Bible, which means that my point about how to use the Bible's teachings is still valid.

teaching yes but using the rule argument the ones you where using as examples where invalidated in the new testament

[leekohler]

Nononono. I'm saying that they are sometimes used to make law in the US. btw, I'm not actually from the states, so if any of that stuff I say isn't true, you'll know why ;)
What I said was about defining sin. Sin only applies to religion. Nobody said it was a fact, I was just trying to make clear what the Bible says about homosexuality (loads of people interpret this in an entirely different way).

There are many theologians who will argue that the Bible isn't clear at all about the subject, especially when directly translated from Hebrew.


Still, it's a horrible thing to do.

They're human beings. They made a mistake and figured it out. Not that it hasn't affected my relationship with them. There is a certain level of trust that's been damaged beyond repair. But for what it is worth, we get along very well.


Kinda reminds me of when people say the N-word, realize that they shouldn't have, and then say "Oh, it's okay, I got loads of black friends". ;)

Except that I never stated that I hate Christians. You did.


Out of interest, what do your Christian friends say about your sexual orientation?

They could really care less. There are more important things in the world to worry about, now aren't there?

[StarbucksSam]

I would love to say that I had time to read all eight pages of this thread, but I must admit that as a busy student I only had time for two.

Here is my view on marriage:

I don't think that anybody should be LEGALLY married. Sorry if that sounds outrageous to you, but if religions want to hold their claim over the term "marriage", they can go ahead and keep it. However, in that event, I think that EVERYBODY, heterosexual, homosexual, orange, chartreuse, whatever ought to have a civil union as far as the state is concerned. Then you can go to a church/mosque/synagogue/temple/religious body of your choice and get "married" if you so desire.

There you go... define marriage however you want, but for tax purposes, purposes of adoption, visitation rights, power of attorney, etc, everybody is equal.

[leekohler]

I would love to say that I had time to read all eight pages of this thread, but I must admit that as a busy student I only had time for two.

Here is my view on marriage:

I don't think that anybody should be LEGALLY married. Sorry if that sounds outrageous to you, but if religions want to hold their claim over the term "marriage", they can go ahead and keep it. However, in that event, I think that EVERYBODY, heterosexual, homosexual, orange, chartreuse, whatever ought to have a civil union as far as the state is concerned. Then you can go to a church/mosque/synagogue/temple/religious body of your choice and get "married" if you so desire.

There you go... define marriage however you want, but for tax purposes, purposes of adoption, visitation rights, power of attorney, etc, everybody is equal.

Yeah, we did mention this before and I think it's certainly acceptable.

[CalBoy]

teaching yes but using the rule argument the ones you where using as examples where invalidated in the new testament

Yes, but the Catholic Church did have a ban against usury for quite some time. I don't believe it was lifted until after Martin Luther's Theses. So, again, churches, as human-run bodies, are fallible because they try to politicize themselves. In desiring to control the flow of society, churches have rules that over time, seem ridiculous and unreasonable to everyone.

PS: Galileo was dealing with the Catholic Church, so I don't see how you're going to tell me that this wasn't the Church's stance on celestial movements.

[imac/cheese]

It adds money back into the economy. Both via the wedding, especially if it's extravagant...

Wow! You managed to combine trickle-down economics with gay marriage. That might create a dilemma in the minds of a lot of conservatives. :confused::confused::confused:

[leekohler]

Wow! You managed to combine trickle-down economics with gay marriage. That might create a dilemma in the minds of a lot of conservatives. :confused::confused::confused:

Haha! OMG! I so needed that! :D

[CalBoy]

Wow! You managed to combine trickle-down economics with gay marriage. That might create a dilemma in the minds of a lot of conservatives. :confused::confused::confused:

LMAO! That was great:D

[solvs]

There are more important things in the world to worry about, now aren't there?
Well, one of them did say it was only the second biggest threat.

Wonder what the first is? Euthanasia, abortion, terrorism? Microsoft? The mind boggles.

Wow! You managed to combine trickle-down economics with gay marriage. That might create a dilemma in the minds of a lot of conservatives. :confused::confused::confused:
Yeah, I do that. You should hear me argue how separation of church and state is actually good for religion. And state.

I don't want to generalize, and I've known some boring gay people, but I don't know if you've ever been to a gay wedding. They tend to be awesome. I'd support it just to go to more. Compared to most straight weddings I've been to, which haven't been as fun.