North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Id disagree here - bad political humour is unfunny because it just parrots the party lines - good humour like above has a deeper message of underlining the stupidity of some arguments - in this case the same Arguments being used now to protest Gay Marriage were used 100 years ago to protest interracial marriage - something which is now generally accepted (in the West at least) - it didn't prove true then and so why will it now?

"deeper message" seriously? Same arguments? It's a facile joke. A counter "joke" might be setting it 20 years in the future and having the same setup but having it turn out to be that the dad married one of those japanese robots. After all "same arguments"!

[Sir Moody]

and that would be just as funny :yes: - and hey if it makes the Dad happy and the robot was consenting who cares? :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agreed but we aren't talking the UK - the UK pretty much HAS Gay Marriage in all but name - the US doesn't and more specifically its North Carolina that has banned it

I think if you look you'll see that the "marriage" bit is the problem in the US - and Gays are pushing for it over here too.

I say "Gays" because "gay" has become an identity, there are quite a few homosexuals who actively don't want homosexual marriage for a variety of reasons - including believing as Frags and I do that it's just word play to support fantasy.

[Vladimir]

and that would be just as funny :yes: - and hey if it makes the Dad happy and the robot was consenting who cares? :shrug:

I like this. :yes:

[Sir Moody]

I think if you look you'll see that the "marriage" bit is the problem in the US - and Gays are pushing for it over here too.

I say "Gays" because "gay" has become an identity, there are quite a few homosexuals who actively don't want homosexual marriage for a variety of reasons - including believing as Frags and I do that it's just word play to support fantasy.

there's a nice phrase for this "If it quacks like a duck..." - what we have over here in the UK IS Gay Marriage - trying to pretend otherwise simple because it isn't actually called Marriage is silly - so why not call it Marriage? (basically that is the Prime Ministers stance on this matter)

Now trying to force Religious institutions to preside over such Marriages is going a bit far (they are trying that here) but that's a different matter entirely

[The Stranger]

cant it all be solved by having everyone who wants to have the social benefits and legal status etc that the state provide get a civil union.

and everyone who wants to be married infront of the eyes of god gets a marriage at whatever religious institution they want.

marriage imo doesnt have to be a civil right but then they shouldnt get all kinds of benefits that are denied to others for no reason except of not fitting in within that church.

so civil union for every one (who wants legal status and social benefits) and marriage only for those who want something extra in the eyes of god.

[Sir Moody]

and who defined Marriage as a specifically Religious thing?

Marriage was around long before the Catholic Church and it will almost certainly out live the Church (Religions come and go...)

[Crazed Rabbit]

An opinion that can't be supported by science? What?

There is no scientific proof of gods existence, which means that there is no god.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I mean, really now.

Also, I can understand how and why people are atheists.

CR

[The Stranger]

i didnt say it was specifically catholic.

[Sir Moody]

i didnt say it was specifically catholic.

I know but its one of the easiest Religions to name - and one of the most Vocal groups claiming Marriage should be a Religious thing.

[The Stranger]

well as it is organised in many "western" countries, marriage is a religious thing. let it stay that way. there is the civil union.

since state and church are seperated, disentangle the legal status + benefits from the church marriage and make this exclusive to the civil union. marriage by church then becomes a religious ceremony/tradition specially for those that want it.

[ajaxfetish]

Then I fail to see how homosexuals are harmed by the status quo.

Then I'm not sure what more to say to you. If you don't see any negatives for gay couples in the current American system, then your position makes perfect sense. It's just somewhat inconceivable to me that all the legal rights and protections involved in inheritance, child support, visitation, end-of-life care, and so forth don't seem to be registering at all.

Ajax

[Sarmatian]

Your sexual preference are not the same as your race. One is a matter of outward appearence - the other is a mattert of how you choose to act. I say choose because despite your preferences your actions are choices.

Your example doesn't compute - especially in places where homosexual couples have access to all the same rights as heterosexuals, but the contract has a different name, like in the UK.

Well, to Michael Jackson both issues were a choice.

[Sir Moody]

well as it is organised in many "western" countries, marriage is a religious thing. let it stay that way. there is the civil union.

since state and church are seperated, disentangle the legal status + benefits from the church marriage and make this exclusive to the civil union. marriage by church then becomes a religious ceremony/tradition specially for those that want it.

accept it isn't and has never has been a uniquely religious insinuation - you don't have to be married by a priest - there are a whole bunch of people who can legally marry someone (ships captains for example)

Who decides who can marry who? Government

Marriage has always been a state endorsed and enforced institution - the church is but one group who can perform them

[Kralizec]

This is where the "civil rights" argument falls apart for homosexual marriage. On one hand, it what race you were born with, on the other, it's what gender you prefer to have sex with. There's no equivalence.

They're not entirely analogous, to be sure. But if refusing to allow a gay couple to marry is not a form of discrimination, as several people have argued, then banning interracial marriage isn't either. Under the latter, everybody's entitled to marry someone within their own racial grouping but not from outside. I.E. whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks and so on.



Abolishing sexual prejudice by slices?

No, I don't accept that. If it's wrong it's wrong, preferencing homosexuals because they have a big media lobby against polyamorous groups, who potentially need the protection more because their living arrangements produce children naturally, is just even more wrong.

It's much more wrong than the current situation. It's like letting Methodists vote in England, but not Catholics.

Oh, and nice sideswipe at my "monstrous" religion.

I prefer your clever trolls though.

Except that homosexuality doesn't fall into the same catagory as polyginy or polyandry. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality is, while being partial to group love isn't. Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to be biologically determined- a fairly large part of the population quite simply is homosexual. Also the changes required in legislation, fiscal regulations and whatnot to make gay marriage possible are minimal; while the same can't be said for polyamorous groupings.

[The Stranger]

accept it isn't and has never has been a uniquely religious insinuation - you don't have to be married by a priest - there are a whole bunch of people who can legally marry someone (ships captains for example)

Who decides who can marry who? Government

Marriage has always been a state endorsed and enforced institution - the church is but one group who can perform them

this all doesnt matter, you can add ship captains to the extra list. the state should provide for all and the other groups, may it be satanic sects, the religions of the book, shipcaptains etc can exclude or include whomever they please and have their own ceremonies as long as they keep it within the boundaries of the law.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They're not entirely analogous, to be sure. But if refusing to allow a gay couple to marry is not a form of discrimination, as several people have argued, then banning interracial marriage isn't either. Under the latter, everybody's entitled to marry someone within their own racial grouping but not from outside. I.E. whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks and so on.




Except that homosexuality doesn't fall into the same catagory as polyginy or polyandry. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality is, while being partial to group love isn't. Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to be biologically determined- a fairly large part of the population quite simply is homosexual. Also the changes required in legislation, fiscal regulations and whatnot to make gay marriage possible are minimal; while the same can't be said for polyamorous groupings.

Bull. This was bull years ago and is bull today. The verdict is still out on the Born that way assumption. Its still just a guess and most studies just mark their results and allow you to determine what is likely. I do like your willingness to just wing it, though.

[Strike For The South]

You're morality comes from somewhere. If it comes from the Bible as one of your sources you have a responsibility to temper your ideals with biblical law. Not just Leviticus which could be argued is a law for Jews only, but the Gospels, the epistles etc, all of which refer to this activity as abomination and marriage as between man and woman. This is the Religious side of the arguement and in no way should it be the be all of government policy my problem is the complicty. Nothing about the Bible says that marriage must be recognized by the state and i dont believe it should be, particularly if we can no longer agree as to what it is., we This is why i must reject your arguements, and look elsewher for a solution. We live in a societywhere you must live with me and i must live yout, although we may just wish each other away, we must find workable solutions between citizens. I hate mobile org and i dont understand why they cant figure out basic text without lag

Show me where in the gospels it condems homosexuality

I do like your willingness to just wing it

[rory_20_uk]

Link (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm)

Few in the gospels, but a fair few spread elsewhere.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.

One must learn to seperate his religous morals from his secular ones. A society is built upon compromise

[Kralizec]

Bull. This was bull years ago and is bull today. The verdict is still out on the Born that way assumption. Its still just a guess and most studies just mark their results and allow you to determine what is likely. I do like your willingness to just wing it, though.

Nope. Since 1989, possibly before that, there's been scientific proof of neurological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. And this has been confirmed in more recent researches.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.


Nary a peep!?

[Whacker]

Nary a peep!?

http://www.marshmallowpeeps.com/products/easter

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.marshmallowpeeps.com/products/easter

We should make that music play automatically in the backroom.

[Whacker]

We should make that music play automatically in the backroom.

This always struck me as far more appropriate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.

One must learn to seperate his religous morals from his secular ones. A society is built upon compromise

I'm pretty sure I've said that divorce is too available - and that adulterers should be prosecuted for perjury.


Nope. Since 1989, possibly before that, there's been scientific proof of neurological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. And this has been confirmed in more recent researches.

While this is true - it begs the question of why the population of people engaging in homsexual sex is so low today and why it was higher historically. It seems unlikely we have all but bread it out in the last 2,000 years - so the only alternative is to conclude that the neurological differences are not deterministic.

[Montmorency]

It is my firm belief that individuals who hold incommensurable philosophical positions and worldviews should fight each other to the death whenever possible.

Explosive vests for those tight moments will be furnished.

[Whacker]

It is my firm belief that individuals who hold incommensurable philosophical positions and worldviews should fight each other to the death whenever possible.

Explosive vests for those tight moments will be furnished.

I.... agree with this. Completely.

So, who wants to go first? PVC or Tuffstuff? No ranged weapons, name your poison. I pick the venue.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

While this is true - it begs the question of why the population of people engaging in homsexual sex is so low today and why it was higher historically. It seems unlikely we have all but bread it out in the last 2,000 years - so the only alternative is to conclude that the neurological differences are not deterministic.

If I recall correctly psychopathy has a genetic factor but requires a certain kind of upbringing to manifest itself.

This is another interesting area that I think gets shafted due to the way we debate this issue.

Anyway, it's quite possible that there is a genetic factor for all kinds of unusual sexual preferences.

[Kralizec]

I'm pretty sure I've said that divorce is too available - and that adulterers should be prosecuted for perjury.



While this is true - it begs the question of why the population of people engaging in homsexual sex is so low today and why it was higher historically. It seems unlikely we have all but bread it out in the last 2,000 years - so the only alternative is to conclude that the neurological differences are not deterministic.

It doesn't have to be a genetic cause (and even if it were; it could be a recessive gene). I think one explanation that's quite in vogue nowadays is hormonal fluctuations in the mother's womb, but I'm no expert - or even a particulary interested layman.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I.... agree with this. Completely.

So, who wants to go first? PVC or Tuffstuff? No ranged weapons, name your poison. I pick the venue.

I don't believe in solving problems by violence - or gladiatorial combat.


It doesn't have to be a genetic cause (and even if it were; it could be a recessive gene). I think one explanation that's quite in vogue nowadays is hormonal fluctuations in the mother's womb, but I'm no expert - or even a particulary interested layman.

The problem with this approach is that it is highly regressive, it medicalises homosexuality. It's notable that exactly this medicalisation used to be held by the establishment until 1989 when the first biological links were actually found. At that point the Gay-right lobby went from, "we should be free to choose who we love" to "we were born this way".

More importantly, if homosexuality has a pathology it can be modified, i.e. homosexuals can be made heterosexual - a claim violently denied by the rights-lobby.

I know Frag wants me to accept I'm a narcicist so I'll seek treatment - because that's a medical condition and he presumably thinks I'll be happier.

If I said the same to a homosexual I would not get a positive response.

[Montmorency]

More importantly, if homosexuality has a pathology it can be modified, i.e. homosexuals can be made heterosexual - a claim violently denied by the rights-lobby.

In the same way that sensation of pain, or of anger, or individuality, or religious belief could hypothetically be modified. I'm surprised you are going there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In the same way that sensation of pain, or of anger, or individuality, or religious belief could hypothetically be modified. I'm surprised you are going there.

If the pathology is deterministic.

I'm not aware of a pathology for religious belief, I know it's possible to initiate something very like a minor "religious experience", such as one achieves through medatitive prayer - but that experience is still subjective. When they stuck Richard Dawkins under the God Helmet he said it itched.

I'm not going there - I'm following the train of thought.

[Montmorency]

You were only discussing it in terms it of psychiatrically treatable mental pathology?

Oh...

Hehehe

[ICantSpellDawg]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.

One must learn to seperate his religous morals from his secular ones. A society is built upon compromise

What do you mean? I don't accept those things either.
Also, I mis-wrote. I meant the new testament, not gospels. There don't seem to be any references in the gospels to homosexuality.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nope. Since 1989, possibly before that, there's been scientific proof of neurological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. And this has been confirmed in more recent researches.

Links?
I remember a study where Identical twins have the same sexual orientation just over 50% of the time. Same DNA sequences, same wombs, usually similar upbringing.

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

You had better go and delete a few of those wiki entries, they are spreading vicious lies about your unscientific faith.

[The Stranger]

What do you mean? I don't accept those things either.
Also, I mis-wrote. I meant the new testament, not gospels. There don't seem to be any references in the gospels to homosexuality.

yes he means that you dont accept that either :P

although i dont see why its funny that adultery is on there because most people dont accept it (when happening to themselves anyway XD)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You were only discussing it in terms it of psychiatrically treatable mental pathology?

Oh...

Hehehe

Oh yes?

Why don't you share with the group?

Unfortunately - those twin studies seem to indicate there is not a biological factor which is deterministic.

[Kralizec]

Links?
I remember a study where Identical twins have the same sexual orientation just over 50% of the time. Same DNA sequences, same wombs, usually similar upbringing.

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

You had better go and delete a few of those wiki entries, they are spreading vicious lies about your unscientific faith.

That only discredits the theory that homosexuality only has a genetic cause. The wiki article you quoted even mentions that identical twins do not necessarily receive the same influx of hormones during pregnancies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochorionic_twins

I was mostly thinking about a Dutch researcher called Dick Swaab when I wrote my previous post; he is mentioned several times in that wiki.

[Strike For The South]

Nary a peep!?


I'm pretty sure I've said that divorce is too available - and that adulterers should be prosecuted for perjury.



What do you mean? I don't accept those things either.
Also, I mis-wrote. I meant the new testament, not gospels. There don't seem to be any references in the gospels to homosexuality.

Within the law, yes. The pulpit is another matter entierly. Plenty of God fearing Christians get divorces and cheat. Not that I judge them, to err is human of course. But to claim to that we need to adhere to Gods moral code within our laws does not mean you can pick and choose which of those laws you wish to apply to the civil code. Being gay is a minority lifestyle and it is much eaiser to claim moral high ground, applying Gods law, when the group is small.

PVC and TuffStuff are not the bulk of people pushing against this, and in my view should be pushing harder for tougher laws against divorce and audultery as the two things are certainly more damging and pervelant to the traditional family

[The Stranger]

That only discredits the theory that homosexuality only has a genetic cause. The wiki article you quoted even mentions that identical twins do not necessarily receive the same influx of hormones during pregnancies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochorionic_twins

I was mostly thinking about a Dutch researcher called Dick Swaab when I wrote my previous post; he is mentioned several times in that wiki.

hes apparantly been threathened with death by gay right activists for that study :P

[Kralizec]

Not sure if there were any death threats, but it's true that some of them (in particular the COC) weren't happy about his research. They thought that they were gay by choice, and were proud of the choice. Or something like that.

I remember he gave a speech at my university several years ago. One of the things he found out back in 1990 was the difference in size of the hypothalamus in gay males. He then showed a bunch of contact advertisements he found in papers and such in the early 90-ies; such as "Man with huge hypothalamus is looking for..." :grin:

[Ironside]

Oh yes?

Why don't you share with the group?

Unfortunately - those twin studies seem to indicate there is not a biological factor which is deterministic.

Unless you're going to argue that over 50% are secretly gay, then it still has a significant biological factor.

Similar to left handedness (or right handedness) that's totally a concious choise... 2 left handed parents still only got less than 50% of their children being left handed, far from 100%, but much higher than the population average. Having one laft handed and one right handed identical twin is not that uncommon, way more common that having 2 left handed one for example.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Unless you're going to argue that over 50% are secretly gay, then it still has a significant biological factor.

Similar to left handedness (or right handedness) that's totally a concious choise... 2 left handed parents still only got less than 50% of their children being left handed, far from 100%, but much higher than the population average. Having one laft handed and one right handed identical twin is not that uncommon, way more common that having 2 left handed one for example.

Sorry?

No, identical twins are identical in felhandedness - "mirror twins" occur when the egg splits slightly later, and they mirror in everything, right down to moles and rogue eyebrow hairs/crooked teeth. Nobody actuall knows what causes people to favour one hand over another, one theory is that every left-hander is a surviving twin.

Different process.

If the genetic factors were deterministic, i.e. if it "caused gayness" then you would expect a much higher correlation

[ICantSpellDawg]

Within the law, yes. The pulpit is another matter entierly. Plenty of God fearing Christians get divorces and cheat. Not that I judge them, to err is human of course. But to claim to that we need to adhere to Gods moral code within our laws does not mean you can pick and choose which of those laws you wish to apply to the civil code. Being gay is a minority lifestyle and it is much eaiser to claim moral high ground, applying Gods law, when the group is small.

PVC and TuffStuff are not the bulk of people pushing against this, and in my view should be pushing harder for tougher laws against divorce and audultery as the two things are certainly more damging and pervelant to the traditional family


You cant see the difference between celebrating a vice and removing laws that punish it.? Im not pushing for those things to be illegal, but i would push hard against them being grounds for special recognition in law. Recognizing that vice exists and that people have the free will to decide to engage in it if different than giving someone thousands of dollars in tax breaks and a special status for it. For the lateryou require my complicity, for htfor the formeryou just a excercise your rights. Im trying to find a middle ground that both preserves the rights of individuals to live there lives by making the choices theyd like without draggingme down with them

[The Stranger]

Sorry?

No, identical twins are identical in felhandedness - "mirror twins" occur when the egg splits slightly later, and they mirror in everything, right down to moles and rogue eyebrow hairs/crooked teeth. Nobody actuall knows what causes people to favour one hand over another, one theory is that every left-hander is a surviving twin.

Different process.

If the genetic factors were deterministic, i.e. if it "caused gayness" then you would expect a much higher correlation

im bipolar, how does that happen? :O and bisexual?

[Fragony]

im bipolar, how does that happen? :O and bisexual?

No you are just being incredibly normal, any internet forum has seen it a ultraextrathousand times before. That is why it's boring. It's not smart, don't let anyone tell you otherwise

[The Stranger]

No you are just being incredibly normal, any internet forum has seen it a ultraextrathousand times before. That is why it's boring. It's not smart, don't let anyone tell you otherwise

lol frag, you have some issues... no one was talking about smart or special -_-

go play with your kittens :whip:

btw what did the kittens give you for mothers day? XD

[Ironside]

Sorry?

No, identical twins are identical in felhandedness - "mirror twins" occur when the egg splits slightly later, and they mirror in everything, right down to moles and rogue eyebrow hairs/crooked teeth. Nobody actuall knows what causes people to favour one hand over another, one theory is that every left-hander is a surviving twin.

Different process.

If the genetic factors were deterministic, i.e. if it "caused gayness" then you would expect a much higher correlation

Hm, the "mirror twins" was new to me. Shame that I couldn't find any data taking that into consideration.

Anyway, my point about left handedness running in the family, while having far from a 100% correlation still stands. It has evidently a genetical factor (possibly an indirect one), but it's not the sole factor and it aren't a choise for the vast majority.

[Papewaio]

First genes are machines with racks of switches that can be turned on and off. Expecting the exact same outcome with the same genes is like expecting the same software on a PC just because they have the same hardware.

Add to it a self learning brain and you have a truly complex situation.

Humans are wonderfully complex. Gene components work in a quantum world. I would be more surprised that all twins with the same genes have 100% the same preferences. Humans have more options hen a six sided die.

Also can anyone explain why more younger siblings are homosexual? That would explain the declining numbers given smaller family sizes quite neatly.

[PanzerJaeger]

You cant see the difference between celebrating a vice and removing laws that punish it.? Im not pushing for those things to be illegal, but i would push hard against them being grounds for special recognition in law. Recognizing that vice exists and that people have the free will to decide to engage in it if different than giving someone thousands of dollars in tax breaks and a special status for it. For the lateryou require my complicity, for htfor the formeryou just a excercise your rights. Im trying to find a middle ground that both preserves the rights of individuals to live there lives by making the choices theyd like without draggingme down with them

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?

[Kadagar_AV]

I joined late: But could someone explain to me why the easiest solution isn't:

A) A contract open to any-ones who love each other and want to spend their lives together, signed by both partners.

B) If someone after that want to go to church and have the marriage blessed by god - They are free to do so if the church approve.


Can anyone, Christians as well as atheists, say this isn't a workable solution? And if so, what is this whole thing all about?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am not sure. It seems to be a choice and life outlook from my perspective, but I've read some things that could also make it sound genetically or hormonally determined. Do I think that it is a choice? Yes, but not in the same way that picking favorite number is or sports team is, I beleive that it is a culmination of many choices and pre-dispositions that you may have or have had throughout your life, consciously and subconsciously. I view it very similarly to tastes, interests, religious preference or political philosophies. I've seen interests become hobbies and hobbies become obsessions and I think that what you believe and the things that you do become you over time.

I am agnostic on the subject. I don't pretend to know one way or the other, but I will call people out who say that it is settled science.

[Sir Moody]

I joined late: But could someone explain to me why the easiest solution isn't:

A) A contract open to any-ones who love each other and want to spend their lives together, signed by both partners.

B) If someone after that want to go to church and have the marriage blessed by god - They are free to do so if the church approve.


Can anyone, Christians as well as atheists, say this isn't a workable solution? And if so, what is this whole thing all about?

part of the problem is one party wants to deny the contract the name of Marriage (which despite claims to the opposite isn't a religious institution) - this is how it was originally installed in the UK

a Straight Couple get Married (even if they don't do so "before god" and don't get married by a priest) - Gay couples have Civil Partnerships

the difference is in name only - they both get the same rights in the eyes of the law

the problem is if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it IS a duck - the Civil Partnership should be called a Marriage because basically that's what it is...

recent legalisation will soon be fixing that and changing it so both Straight and Gay couples can get Married

this is the perfect solution - both Gay and Straight couples can get Married and the Religious overtures are left entirely up to the couple - if they want the marriage "in the eyes of god" they simple make their vows in front of a priest in a church

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I joined late: But could someone explain to me why the easiest solution isn't:

A) A contract open to any-ones who love each other and want to spend their lives together, signed by both partners.

B) If someone after that want to go to church and have the marriage blessed by god - They are free to do so if the church approve.


Can anyone, Christians as well as atheists, say this isn't a workable solution? And if so, what is this whole thing all about?

I'll give you to problems.

A) If two people can get married regardless of gender, what about 3, 4, 8 or 20? What is the practical reason not to allow this? I can't see one, but many people who support Gay marriage pour scorn upon other living arrangements - no matter how enduring.

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".


the problem is if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it IS a duck - the Civil Partnership should be called a Marriage because basically that's what it is...

Unless it's a goose, which walks like a duck but honks slightly differently.

Civil Partnerships do actually have a few different legal paramaters:

http://www.spainwilliams.com/family/2007/06/civil_partnersh.html#more

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Divorceseparationandrelationshipbreakdown/Endingamarriageorcivilpartnership/Annullingamarriage/DG_193751

Not the same - just very similar.

They are different because the practicalities are different, slapping a "marriage" label on the tin won't change that any more than calling rain hail will freeze it.

[Sir Moody]

A) I think I have said this before but so long as all parties concerned are consenting and in agreement, why not? of course the next argument the "anti" crowd brings up is Marriage with animals or inanimate objects - Animals cant consent and frankly who cares if someone marries an inanimate object (they are just saving us time in declaring them mentally unstable...)

B) I disagree with the ECHR on a number of rulings - this being one of them - I don't see how a Church which has the right to Worship cant chose who it marries based on the tenants of its faith... there are already Churches in UK that will only marry couples who follow their guidelines (i.e. attending Church on Sundays for x number of Month's before the marriage) how is this different?

I wasn't aware of those differences - though they do seem to only concern the "ending" of the Partnership - I still think they are close enough to each other that calling them both Marriages is fair enough

[Catiline]

https://p.twimg.com/AstEjKGCMAAvkv9.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wasn't aware of those differences - though they do seem to only concern the "ending" of the Partnership - I still think they are close enough to each other that calling them both Marriages is fair enough

That's basically the same emotional appeal.

"Well, they deserve to have it called marriage."

A "marriage" is a yoking-together of a man and a woman, a reflection of basic biology. A Civil Partnership is two people choosing to live together because they love each other.

Yes, it is the Bible which describes a man and a woman becoming "one flesh", but it says that because that is exactly what happens when a man and a woman have children. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman for that reason, even when men have contracted multiple marriages it has been with women - even the examples HoreTore linked to centre around a heterosexual couple even as both in the couple aquire new (heterosexual) partners.

That's not the same, it's just very similar.

[Sir Moody]

but Marriage was around before the Church - and you can get Married without ever seeing a priest or the inside of a Church

trying to claim the Marriage is purely Religious and using that to say Gay couples cant marry is ignoring the fact that in out Modern world, it isn't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

but Marriage was around before the Church - and you can get Married without ever seeing a priest or the inside of a Church

trying to claim the Marriage is purely Religious and using that to say Gay couples cant marry is ignoring the fact that in out Modern world, it isn't.

That's absolutely true - but I didn't say that.

I merely quoted the Bible - I'm allowed to do that in support of the argument, the opinions of the Biblical authors are not invalidated by their being Christians.

Also, until around 1750 odd the Church in England was not legally involved in marriage, and whether you were married or not was covered by Common Law. Marriage statutes were introduced to clear up legal confusion in the 18th Century and the Church became involved as an arm of the State.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://p.twimg.com/AstEjKGCMAAvkv9.jpg

Yuh sure?

Ask the 19th Century anti-slavery protestors, or perhaps the levellers.

[Sir Moody]

That's absolutely true - but I didn't say that.

I merely quoted the Bible - I'm allowed to do that in support of the argument, the opinions of the Biblical authors are not invalidated by their being Christians.

Also, until around 1750 odd the Church in England was not legally involved in marriage, and whether you were married or not was covered by Common Law. Marriage statutes were introduced to clear up legal confusion in the 18th Century and the Church became involved as an arm of the State.

which is another bone of contention with me... its about time we separated the Church of England and the State... that's just a pipe dream however - I cant see the Government letting go of their control of the Church...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

which is another bone of contention with me... its about time we separated the Church of England and the State... that's just a pipe dream however - I cant see the Government letting go of their control of the Church...

It won't happen before we become a Republic - and despite what ideaological opinions you might or might not hold regarding monarchy, that is not a process you are going to want to live through.

[Sir Moody]

It won't happen before we become a Republic - and despite what ideaological opinions you might or might not hold regarding monarchy, that is not a process you are going to want to live through.

Funnily enough I am pro Monarchy as well as pro Secular... sadly you are mostly right we cant have both...

If I had to chose one or the other it would be a Secular Republic...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Funnily enough I am pro Monarchy as well as pro Secular... sadly you are mostly right we cant have both...

If I had to chose one or the other it would be a Secular Republic...

It's a nice idea - but it's not worth sacrificing peace and stability for. Even Italy, which abolished it's monarchy by popular referendum, did so only after the Facists had ruined the country under the cover of the Crown.

[Sir Moody]

it seems to work well for the French...

(and don't bring up the French Revolution - hopefully we have come far enough now we wouldn't need bloodshed or to abolish the Monarchy to institute a Republic if it came to that... or am I being optimistic?)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

it seems to work well for the French...

(and don't bring up the French Revolution - hopefully we have come far enough now we wouldn't need bloodshed or to abolish the Monarchy to institute a Republic if it came to that... or am I being optimistic?)

I don't like the French system, it relies on you being very French for it to work - and it is highly prescriptive. Nor are the French political class as accountable for their actions as the Bitish are - witness Strass-Kahn, caught only because he was in the US when he misbehaved.

As to change without a revolution - find me a country that has managed it without either first going through national trauma, or having trauma subsequntly.

Now, for Whacker - as he insists on picking a fight with me:

I have at no point made a judgement of the sorts of emotional or spiritual relationships which may be formed between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.

I shall make such a judgement now, so that you may have it on record:

It is impossible to quantify the love which two people can have for each other. Such love can take many forms, the emotional relationship between to otherwise heterosexual men or woman can reach such a pitch as to border the erotic, likewise some parents find after twenty years of marriage that they have little in common besides their children and yet that is enough for them. Some relationships last a lifetime, some of the most intense can last only a few months, some are warm and secure while others are like an inferno. Some of the most loving relationships are utterly destructive to those involved and those around them. Love is not always found where we expect it - intimacy can arise between people who have not obvious compatability, somethimes they are not even of the same sexual orientation. Plato tells us that Socrates believed the greatest love was between two people who had no sexual involvement at all, regardless of preference or gender while Aristotle opined that a relationship between two men of equal status who do not debase themselves or each other is better than any other kind, especially because any sexual act between them expresses Eros and is not driven by a base need to procreate.

From this I would draw one conclusion - namely that whatever else may be said of the various couplings human beings engage in it can be said exclusively of heterosexual relationships that they produce the next generation, and of homosexual ones that they are entirely free of this motive. From this may be drawn a further conclusion, that no man will ever into a relationship with another man merely in order to have someone to bear his children.

However, the potentially superior emotional and spiritual quality of homosexual relationships does not mean that homosexual physical unions should necessarily be given the same social or religious status as marriage.

[ajaxfetish]

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".

IMO, the ECHR is clearly in the wrong here, as long as they consider that discrimination wrong. On the surface of course, it is discrimination, pretty much by definition, but we consider plenty of discrimination to be perfectly acceptable, and allow religious institutions to discriminate in many ways (they don't have to accept anyone as a member, for instance). This is another way they should be allowed to discriminate, in line with their moral stance.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

IMO, the ECHR is clearly in the wrong here, as long as they consider that discrimination wrong. On the surface of course, it is discrimination, pretty much by definition, but we consider plenty of discrimination to be perfectly acceptable, and allow religious institutions to discriminate in many ways (they don't have to accept anyone as a member, for instance). This is another way they should be allowed to discriminate, in line with their moral stance.

Ajax

Law in the UK and Europe doesn't work that way - if Gay Civil marriage is the same institution as marriage then refusing to perform a marriage for a Gay couple is discrimination. If, on the other hand, it is simply a very similar institution with a different name then it is not discrimination, but it can't be a different instition with the same name - because that would be discrimination.

In the same way you can't have "white alchohol units" and "asian alchohol units" and call both "alchohol units" on the basis that different ethnic groups have different tollerances.

[Catiline]

From this I would draw one conclusion - namely that whatever else may be said of the various couplings human beings engage in it can be said exclusively of heterosexual relationships that they produce the next generation, and of homosexual ones that they are entirely free of this motive. From this may be drawn a further conclusion, that no man will ever into a relationship with another man merely in order to have someone to bear his children.

But marriage is completely unecessary for procreation of the next generation.

[Conradus]

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".


Seriously? Could you link me that judgment?

Because we have the gay marriage for quite some time now in Belgium and I've never heard of churches being forced to perform a gay marriage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But marriage is completely unecessary for procreation of the next generation.

I refer to the previous 11 pages for the reasons we have a social construct to attach a man to the mother of his children.

Sufice it to say, the contruct exists to identify the children's father, to give the father legal rights regarding the children and the woman legal hooks into the father.

[Kralizec]

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".


B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".


Did they? Source?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Seriously? Could you link me that judgment?

Because we have the gay marriage for quite some time now in Belgium and I've never heard of churches being forced to perform a gay marriage.

Well yes, but the UK case may be a bit different due to the fact that the CofE is part of the English state. Also if religious marriage is deemed equal to marriage before a civil servant then that would tend to complicate it further.

By contrast since in Dutch (and presumably Belgian) law only marriage before the civil servant "counts" and religious marriage rituals have no legal significance whatsoever (except in the case where you get the order of ceremonies wrong, in which case the conduct of the religious rituals constitutes a crime), so the religious rites can be denied to couples that don't fit the institution's dogma.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well yes, but the UK case may be a bit different due to the fact that the CofE is part of the English state. Also if religious marriage is deemed equal to marriage before a civil servant then that would tend to complicate it further.

By contrast since in Dutch (and presumably Belgian) law only marriage before the civil servant "counts" and religious marriage rituals have no legal significance whatsoever (except in the case where you get the order of ceremonies wrong, in which case the conduct of the religious rituals constitutes a crime), so the religious rites can be denied to couples that don't fit the institution's dogma.

Bingo.

2010 Austria: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/24/european-court-of-human-rights-civil-partnerships

Mar 2012 France:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9157029/Gay-marriage-is-not-a-human-right-according-to-European-ruling.html

Ah, but it seems Thinking Anglicans dissagree: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005436.html

I am not convinced - but it all depends on the legal relationship between heterosexual and homosexual marriage in the UK.

CofE lawyers have already expressed concerns because CofE priests can officiate at legal weddings.

[Kralizec]

Apparently, this ruling (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Gas%20%7C%20Dubois%20%7C%20France%20%7C%2025951/07&sessionid=95847046&skin=hudoc-en) (GAS AND DUBOIS v. FRANCE) is the one PVC intended. I had to use Google Translate because I can't read French very well (or quickly); but I haven't been able to find anything in the ruling that suggests that churches can't refuse to hold ceremonies for gay couples.

In the Daily mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html):

An earlier version of this article included the paragraph 'The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples.' This was in fact an implication of the judgement rather than a statement contained within it.

Except that I'm not seeing where such a thing is implied, at all. Maybe it has something to do with the UK's idiosyncracies in regards to marriage procedures and the state-church relationship in general that I'm not particulary familiar with.

[Lemur]

Of interest: longtime conservative pollster explains why GOP should moderate on gay marriage (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/bush-pollster-change-in-attitudes-on-gay-marriage-123235.html).

Implications (http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/off-to-the-races/charlie-cook-gop-may-want-to-rethink-gay-marriage-20120514):

[Jan van Lohuizen] goes on to say that this is consistent with conservative principles: “As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment, and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government, we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to decide how you live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”

The pollster is not arguing morality or public policy. He is, however, suggesting his party recognize that it has staked out positions on this constellation of issues that fly in the face of rather rapidly changing public attitudes. Not unlike warnings from other strategists about Republican positions and rhetoric that have hurt them badly with the growing Latino vote, the GOP here risks being on the wrong side of an issue where the world is moving in a different way.

To be sure, political parties are not supposed to be weather vanes, changing whenever the wind blows in a new direction. When they choose to fly in the face of evolving public attitudes, though, they need to think about it long and hard; they need to decide if it’s really worth it and consider that times might have changed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently, this ruling (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Gas | Dubois | France | 25951/07&sessionid=95847046&skin=hudoc-en) (GAS AND DUBOIS v. FRANCE) is the one PVC intended. I had to use Google Translate because I can't read French very well (or quickly); but I haven't been able to find anything in the ruling that suggests that churches can't refuse to hold ceremonies for gay couples.

In the Daily mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html):


Except that I'm not seeing where such a thing is implied, at all. Maybe it has something to do with the UK's idiosyncracies in regards to marriage procedures and the state-church relationship in general that I'm not particulary familiar with.

Well, for one thing, any citizen of the UK has the automatic right to Church wedding and burial, and christening but that's less an issue. Individual Vicars can get tetchy about non-communicants but you just wave the Canon and Statute under their noses and they'll wilt.

If Gay people can have actual wedding ceremonies you can't justify denying them a Church wedding if it's available to anyone else.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/eccmarriagemeasure.pdf

Note the complete lack of "man" or "woman" because they are assumed - but not there stipulated.

The worst part of this is that Parliament can legislate for the Church.

[Lemur]

Well, for one thing, any citizen of the UK has the automatic right to Church wedding and burial, and christening but that's less an issue.
Well then, that's your own fault for having a state church. What a foolish, anachronistic institution to maintain! That's almost as silly as paying to keep royalty around ... oh, um, nevermind. Best to the queen and all of that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well then, that's your own fault for having a state church. What a foolish, anachronistic institution to maintain! That's almost as silly as paying to keep royalty around ... oh, um, nevermind. Best to the queen and all of that.

Call me silly, but I'm not a fan of the bloody insurrection needed to change to a Republic, and I don't find France, the US, Italy or Greece encouraging models.

[Kralizec]

Call me silly

You're silly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're silly.

Yeah?

Fancy the Constitutional collapse of the Dutch State?

:tongue:

[Lemur]

Favorite way to enrage Canadians and Ozzies: Ask them how their queen is doing. Tell them you think it's lovely they are subservient to a royal family a hemisphere away. (Then watch subject turn red and stammer.)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, but it seems Thinking Anglicans dissagree: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005436.html

'Thinking Anglicans'?

Choosing a name like that for themselves puts me off reading anything they have to say.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Favorite way to enrage Canadians and Ozzies: Ask them how their queen is doing. Tell them you think it's lovely they are subservient to a royal family a hemisphere away. (Then watch subject turn red and stammer.)

It was recently suggested by certain Canadian parties that they might like their own Royal Family, starting with King Henry I. I'm all for that, Harry to Canada, Andrew to Australia, Edward of Kent to New Zealand, Michael of Kent to.... etc.

If the Americans rejoin the Commonwealth they can have the Earl of Wessex.


'Thinking Anglicans'?

Choosing a name like that for themselves puts me off reading anything they have to say.

That would be to your loss.

[Lemur]

If the Americans rejoin the Commonwealth they can have the Earl of Wessex.
Counter-offer: Britain can become the 51st state. We'll even throw in two senators. It's a bargain!

-edit-

If Scotland and N. Ireland want to be their own states, I guess we would allow that. Might ask N. Ireland to be a territory, like Puerto Rico or American Samoa, until they get themselves sorted out. Gibraltar does not get statehood, neither do Maldives/Falklands.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Counter-offer: Britain can become the 51st state. We'll even throw in two senators. It's a bargain!

You guys take your religion far too seriously.

"God Bless America"?

What?

Nooooo. Couldn't stick that.

Counter-Counter: We'll tell you which bits of your country HM Queen already owns if you opt in, and we won't even send any Redcoats to New York - the infantry wear blue serge now.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That would be to your loss.

If you didn't like the tone of the article on the Dali Lama, surely you got to be offended by what they are implying by deeming themselves to be the "thinking Anglicans"?

[Lemur]

Counter-Counter: We'll tell you which bits of your country HM Queen already owns if you opt in, and we won't even send any Redcoats to New York - the infantry wear blue serge now.
REPEAL THE THIRD AMENDMENT!

C'mon, you'd get access to all the guns you can eat, and a real, written constitution. Mmmm. Just think about it. A constitution that is written down someplace. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Counter-counter-counter offer: We'll take Wales off your hands.

[Whacker]

C'mon, you'd get access to all the guns you can eat, and a real, written constitution. Mmmm. Just think about it. A constitution that is written down someplace. Wouldn't that be lovely?

You mean that really important piece of toilet paper that the past few presidential administrations have wiped with?

[Kralizec]

Yeah?

Fancy the Constitutional collapse of the Dutch State?

:tongue:

Sounds like fun. Bring it on :boxing:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

REPEAL THE THIRD AMENDMENT!

C'mon, you'd get access to all the guns you can eat, and a real, written constitution. Mmmm. Just think about it. A constitution that is written down someplace. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Counter-counter-counter offer: We'll take Wales off your hands.

I can already have guns, and longbows, just not handguns - and we have a real wrtitten Constitution, it's just easier to amend than yours. Not necessarily a bad thing given the Health Care nonsense you have.

Also, we have socialised medicine.

Fourth Counter: We'll give you a medical system you can use without filing for bankruptcy, and I'm 1/16th Welsh, so watch it!

[Conradus]

If Scotland and N. Ireland want to be their own states, I guess we would allow that. Might ask N. Ireland to be a territory, like Puerto Rico or American Samoa, until they get themselves sorted out. Gibraltar does not get statehood, neither do Maldives/Falklands.

Last time I checked the Maldives weren't part of the UK. The Malvinas, now they were :p

[Papewaio]

I don't mind New Zealand being a monarchy. I think Australia needs to have a directly elected president to heap the blame on rather then a no fault figurehead.

Counter Offer:
The Commonwealth of Australia requires a new small state to balance out the two drive economy. We propose that it is Texas as it is about the right size for one of our smaller ones.

Also we will take on South Wales so that we have the complete set to go with New South Wales.

[Sarmatian]

Favorite way to enrage Canadians and Ozzies: Ask them how their queen is doing. Tell them you think it's lovely they are subservient to a royal family a hemisphere away. (Then watch subject turn red and stammer.)

I don't know... Have a friend, his family left for New Zealand when he was 12, he came back to live in Serbia when he was 25. When he got back, he was all "queeny"... "Oh, I'm her majesty's favourite subject"... "Look in my passport how the queen asks every country in the world to let me in cause I'm her subject".... Basically, he came back a monarchy lover and soooo happy to be a subject. And that's from a Serbian, and Serbs like monarchs only slightly more than French...

They do something to people there. It's not normal...

[The Stranger]

they let them have sex with sheep :P

[Fragony]

Yeah?

Fancy the Constitutional collapse of the Dutch State?

:tongue:

End of the monarchy? Gladly they are a bunch of thugs. Shave them French style.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't mind New Zealand being a monarchy. I think Australia needs to have a directly elected president to heap the blame on rather then a no fault figurehead.

Counter Offer:
The Commonwealth of Australia requires a new small state to balance out the two drive economy. We propose that it is Texas as it is about the right size for one of our smaller ones.

Also we will take on South Wales so that we have the complete set to go with New South Wales.


BAH! Your nation has always been scysmatic, Pape. Where's your family loyalty?

For God's sake man, we're arguing with Americans.

[rvg]

Personally, I'd leave the British monarchy alone. It's not harming anyone and is generating lots of money as a tourist attraction. If anything, I'd like to see British monarchy endure long after Saudi Arabia becomes a republic.

[Papewaio]

BAH! Your nation has always been scysmatic, Pape. Where's your family loyalty?

For God's sake man, we're arguing with Americans.

Americans are family. In my case one of my Welsh great grandmothers was born their to Welsh immigrants.

I'm Welsh, Swedish, English, Irish, Scottish and French by heritage.

Born in Fiji, raised in New Zealand, higher education in Australia.

So to totally confuse my kid he's got a Taiwanese mum.

Alloys and positive hybidisation are trump.

[rvg]

Americans are family. In my case one of my Welsh great grandmothers was born their to Welsh immigrants.

I'm Welsh, Swedish, English, Irish, Scottish and French by heritage.

Born in Fiji, raised in New Zealand, higher education in Australia.

So to totally confuse my kid he's got a Taiwanese mum.

Alloys and positive hybidisation are trump.

Time to move to America to complete the circle.

[The Stranger]

Africa you mean...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Archbishop of York on why he thinks we should not have same-sex marriage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/17/justice-equality-same-sex-marriage

Remember - in the UK homosexual couples have access to all the rights heterosexual ones do under the law.

I particularly like his question, "what injustice is corrected by allowing homosexual marriage" - his point being that, unlike "mixed-race" marriages nobody (in the UK) is proposing stopping a homosexual couple from being together or living together.

[Fragony]

Must say I have little to throw against it. I secretly agree with those who are against homosexual marriage but I will still support it. Why they want it I don't know but they surely should be able to do so. I just wish they didn't want to.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I secretly agree with those who are against homosexual marriage but I will still support it.

I used to be like that with a lot of things. I guess I then started to wonder why I should feel guilty for feeling what I do. I feel liberated now.

[Fragony]

I used to be like that with a lot of things. I guess I then started to wonder why I should feel guilty for feeling what I do. I feel liberated now.

I don't feel guilty, I am open to arguments and the pro-crowd convinced me. It still feels wrong to me but maybe that's just me, I am not religious but I still think it's unnatural and a mockery of the way of things. They have my support not my agreement, I will never see it as anything else other than a parody and they will just have to live with that in return.

[The Stranger]

that makes so little sense... but I guess its the Frag way of doing things

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't feel guilty, I am open to arguments and the pro-crowd convinced me. It still feels wrong to me but maybe that's just me, I am not religious but I still think it's unnatural and a mockery of the way of things. They have my support not my agreement, I will never see it as anything else other than a parody and they will just have to live with that in return.

That really makes no sense. I see no reason to be complicit in this if I disagree with their rationale as narrow minded and I have an opposing Religious view. I have been convinced, however, that the government may have no legitimate interest in it's current understanding of marriage, which takes on a metaphysical, sexual, and quasi-religious quality (areas that I wish that the government would stay out of). I would now much rather see a single parent receive a tax break on income equal to the break given to married couples, or two platonic best friends or family members leave one another their social security benefits, etc. This wouldn't affect my religious marriage at all and it would not require me to be complicit in relationships which I view as an abomination. It would let people strengthen the relationships that are most important to them (irrespective of type) and secure their chosen families without requiring me to recognize their chosen family as "special". It would just be a given that these federal/state allowances are applied on an individual basis rather than an arbitrary and/or religious basis.

I have been convinced that this is the right way to go and I will say "good riddance" to this kerfuffle about gay marriage when we get past it and on to the meat and bones of our understanding of the types of civil contracts that the government should be facilitating for its citizens, now that we can no longer agree on what marriage is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

that makes so little sense... but I guess its the Frag way of doing things

I think that what Frag means is that when you look at Western society in general "Gay Marriage" fits in that frame, but he still doesn't really buy into it on an intuitive level.

Gay-Rights campaigners simply scream "homophobe" at all anti- arguments, which doesn't help. There's an awful lot of emotional blackmail coming from both sides and very little careful consideration of the issue.

For my self, I will continue to oppose it unless or until it is made law - when they then try and force the Churches to do something against their conciences I will oppose that on principle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that what Frag means is that when you look at Western society in general "Gay Marriage" fits in that frame, but he still doesn't really buy into it on an intuitive level.

Gay-Rights campaigners simply scream "homophobe" at all anti- arguments, which doesn't help. There's an awful lot of emotional blackmail coming from both sides and very little careful consideration of the issue.

For my self, I will continue to oppose it unless or until it is made law - when they then try and force the Churches to do something against their conciences I will oppose that on principle.

I agree with your understanding of the situation. I had a friend of mine say "this issue is EXACTLY like slavery", he went on to say, simply, that all who oppose this move are religious bigots who are out of touch with the American people. I disagree with every point that he made, but the emotional argument is a powerful one, as always.

I try to argue as a citizen who holds religious beliefs. I try not to impose my religiously held beliefs on others, and would ask the same of the opposition. There is a workable solution and, as always, I believe that government should be a blind arbiter with the lowest common denominator in mind. A simple contractual agreement between 2 (or more) parties for the financial security benefit of the citizens is something I would be willing to discuss and come to an agreement about. I know what marriage mean to me and most of my loved ones and the governments involvement in it will not change that one way or the other. The governmental institution of marriage is relatively new one and I believe that the government has no business in it, as I have stated ad nauseam.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't know, I think Fragony shows a high level of intellectual maturity.

He is against it on an intuitive level, but has budged for arguments that he deemed fair from an intellectual standpoint. I think that gives him more cred than someone supporting it full heartedly.

[The Stranger]

but thats not what he said tho (or perhaps I just understood it wrong), what I couldnt grasp is that he doesnt agree with something (which does not mean intuitively) but he does support it.

i can understand that you ignore your gut feeling over rational argument but i didnt read that in his post. if thats what he meant tho its more understandable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't know, I think Fragony shows a high level of intellectual maturity.

He is against it on an intuitive level, but has budged for arguments that he deemed fair from an intellectual standpoint. I think that gives him more cred than someone supporting it full heartedly.

I personally think it has to do with how you define a whole list of words, and thence concepts.

Both positions are intellectually defensible - but both spring from different worldviews. I would argue the reason many religious people object to including homosexual relationships under the heading "marriage" has to do with their view of society as a whole, not homosexuals specifically.

For me - it's like calling a fork a spoon, you eat with both but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, maybe Frags can elaborate instead of us debating who of us got him right...

[Fragony]

You did.


First time I have been accused of intellectual maturity

[Kadagar_AV]

You did.


*does my little "I told You so" dance routine*

[The Stranger]

:creep: Frag should be more clear

[Fragony]

*does my little "I told You so" dance routine*

Oh grow up

[Visor]

I think that what Frag means is that when you look at Western society in general "Gay Marriage" fits in that frame, but he still doesn't really buy into it on an intuitive level.

Gay-Rights campaigners simply scream "homophobe" at all anti- arguments, which doesn't help. There's an awful lot of emotional blackmail coming from both sides and very little careful consideration of the issue.

For my self, I will continue to oppose it unless or until it is made law - when they then try and force the Churches to do something against their conciences I will oppose that on principle.

The emotional blackmail certainly does come from the gay side as well as from the anti arguments. It's ridiculous.

And to be quite honest, stupid. Gay "marriage" or whatever is hardly the most important thing on the planet at the moment. Give em civil unions, I'm fine with that. Give them the same legal rights, no reason why not.

[Papewaio]

Marriage is legalized by nation not planet.

How do brides refer to their wedding day? Unimportant, of little consequence, of no importance?
No, it's the biggest day of their lives (yet).

Marriage is seen as one of the most important ways couples tell society that they are in a long term commitment. It is a commitment to society that you as a loving couple are going to look after each other, for society to support that love in each other.

Rules of law are made and enforced for citizens by individual countries. Equality is one of the most important building blocks of a modern society.

The flip side is that most of us have a choice in being married, single or being in a de facto relationship. Why is the choices dependent on having a unmatched set of genitals?

[Papewaio]

Marriage is legalized by nation not planet.

How do brides refer to their wedding day? Unimportant, of little consequence, of no importance?
No, it's the biggest day of their lives (yet).

Marriage is seen as one of the most important ways couples tell society that they are in a long term commitment. It is a commitment to society that you as a loving couple are going to look after each other, for society to support that love in each other.

Rules of law are made and enforced for citizens by individual countries. Equality is one of the most important building blocks of a modern society.

The flip side is that most of us have a choice in being married, single or being in a de facto relationship. Why is the choices dependent on having a unmatched set of genitals?

[Skullheadhq]

Simple soloution all concepts of civil marraige/union etc are banned end of discussion.

Basically if you want a ceremony in a catholic church it will be no more or recognised by law than one in a pastafarian church.

This is the best solution. If people want to do a piece of theatre and call it marriage I wont stop it, but no state recognition for any type of marriage whatsoever.


'Thinking Anglicans'?

Choosing a name like that for themselves puts me off reading anything they have to say.

Thinking anglicans? Are there non-thinking Anglicans as well? :laugh4:


I am really beginning to despise Christians.
What would have happenend if I'd typed that I'm beginning to despise jews or muslims?
Anyway, you can despise me, but at least I won't despise you :yes:

[PanzerJaeger]

What would have happenend if I'd typed that I'm beginning to despise jews or muslims?
Anyway, you can despise me, but at least I won't despise you :yes:

'I'm beginning to despise jews or muslims?' would have been displayed on your monitor, assuming that your keyboard is plugged in. :shrug:

More Christian charity from North Carolina. I would have thought that since the bill passed they would have transfered their righteous judgement to another topic. Guess not.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d2n7vSPwhSU

[Fragony]

Title on that video is misleading, but there sure is a long way to go

[Skullheadhq]

'I'm beginning to despise jews or muslims?' would have been displayed on your monitor, assuming that your keyboard is plugged in. :shrug:

More Christian charity from North Carolina. I would have thought that since the bill passed they would have transfered their righteous judgement to another topic. Guess not.

Of course, one pastor represents the whole of Christianity. Anyway, does it surprise, or bother, you that not all people hold your opinions?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Of course, one pastor represents the whole of Christianity. Anyway, does it surprise, or bother, you that not all people hold your opinions?

I liked you better when you were a naive Communist.

[Skullheadhq]

I liked you better when you were a naive Communist.

That was years ago :yes:. I was converted to free-marketism (is that even a word). Besides, I am not really conservative or christian-democrat. I am more of a Euro-style liberal. I don't care what people do if they don't force their view of it down my throat with stupid rethoric (which both sides in this debate in America do). I wouldn't have voted against same-sex union in this referendum. If they want it let them have it. They won't stop nagging till they get it anyway.





I believe it is because rational, intelligent people

It always makes me smile when people call themselves rational and intelligent.

[Fragony]

I'll do it for him then, PJ is rational and intelligent.

[Vladimir]

I'll do it for him then, PJ is rational and intelligent.

And a bigot.

[Fragony]

And a bigot.

So am I, are you not? Time to build spaceships then you can be the captain

[Skullheadhq]

So am I, are you not? Time to build spaceships then you can be the captain

Whoa, I feel stupid for not understanding a thing you're saying.

[The Stranger]

you are being a bigot right now though...

allthough frag is universally accepted to be non comprehensible

[Vladimir]

So am I, are you not? Time to build spaceships then you can be the captain

No I'm not, but I play one in the Backroom [/joke]

I take it you're referring to the Frontroom thread? No Enterprise for you!