Newsflash: Civil Unions come to New Hampshire. The Don in full support

[Don Corleone]

:turtle:

Finally, a chance to prove that I'm not a hypocrite. And in a way that makes sense. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267040,00.html

I've been saying all along that I oppose gay marriage but support civil unions, unless they're forced on a state by the judiciary. Here in New Hampshire, I am proud to announce reason has found a home and we have struck the perfect compromise. We will be the 4th state in the Union to offer Civil Unions, and the 2nd to do so without being ordered to by the court.

In a sign of how reasonable this decision must be, both of the more strident camps are furious. Gay rights activists call it a sell-out, saying the Democrats tossed their dream of gay marriage under the bus. And you can only imagine what social conservatives have to say.

Well, now, without a state supreme court dictating to me what my opinion is, I can express it freely, and I say Bravo. No chance of ordering churches to perform gay weddings, but at the same time, all of the benefits and responsibilities conferred upon heterosexual couples will be conveyed (medical decisions, joint mortgages, etcetera). I don't know if Goofy is going to be more shocked that I found this story, or that I'm 100% behind it, but I haven't been talking out the side of my mouth for the past few years. This is how it should happen, IMHO. :bow:

*Note* The turtle smiley at the top has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I just went looking for a smiley, couldn't find one, and really liked it, so voila.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I was thinking the other day about a way of handling the marriage/civil union thing which might satisfy everybody-

First, everyone who wants to be legally joined together gets a "civil union"-hetero couples, gay couples, close friends, anyone who feels like it. So everyone has the same status before the law. This is a purely legal thing, and just entails going to a registry office.

Then, anyone who wants to get married in the religious sense can attend a ceremony at the church of their choice. This is no longer legally binding, as that's been separated off in the step outlined above, it's simply a religious thing.

Therefore we avoid the unwieldy duality of seperate "marriage" and "civil union" legal status, but don't don't intrude on people's religious sensibilities too much. I think it would work.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, I'm not going to throw my support behind this...yet.

It certainly is preferable to gay marriage, and it sounds like it solves the complaints regarding legal and medical decisions.

Any info on just how far these civil unions go? Do they get marriage tax benefits?

CR

[Lemur]

First, everyone who wants to be legally joined together gets a "civil union"-hetero couples, gay couples, close friends, anyone who feels like it. So everyone has the same status before the law. This is a purely legal thing, and just entails going to a registry office.

Then, anyone who wants to get married in the religious sense can attend a ceremony at the church of their choice. This is no longer legally binding, as that's been separated off in the step outlined above, it's simply a religious thing.
I've been arguing that this should be the case for years. Marriage as a civil and legal relationship should be handled by the state. Marriage as a holy union should be handled by the church.

[Adrian II]

I've been arguing that this should be the case for years. Marriage as a civil and legal relationship should be handled by the state. Marriage as a holy union should be handled by the church.Is this not already the case in the U.S.? :dizzy2:

[Lemur]

Unfortunately, no. Marriage in the U.S. is entirely the province of the state. People choose to get married in churches, but the location has no legal significance. All of the actual, legal meaning of your marriage is determined by the state.

This can lead to interesting situations, especially for people whose religion is at variance with the state definition of marriage. Catholics who divorce and remarry, for example, are only rarely considered legitimate in the eyes of the Church.

[Adrian II]

Marriage in the U.S. is entirely the province of the state.That's what I thought all along. Thank heavens, I was starting to be afraid I had missed something essential.

So, what's wrong with this practice? What would your notion of 'holy union' add in the legal sphere? Do you want to give Churches marital jurisdiction or something?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's what I thought all along. Thank heavens, I was starting to be afraid I had missed something essential

I think he miss read you. All the legal functions of marriage are imdeed handled by the state. What the church has to say is meangless as far as the law goes. You dont even need a church to get married. Now I wonder what the age restrictions are on these. How about the number who can join the union? Since it isnt about procreation there shouldnt be any stipulation in it about joining relatives. Although I have no problem with it , im afraid it may lead us down the peverbeal slippery slope thats always talked about. It really is a totally seperate matter from marriage. Or at least it should be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm in favour of this. I'm certainly not in favour of homosexual marriage, as that defeats the definition of marriage. It will however irritate me greatly if both camps KEEP going on about this.

[BigTex]

Bout darn time. I hope this little idea will migrate to Texas. Keeps the churchy folks from crying about the sanctity of mariage. And it gives homosexual couples what they wanted. Still would like to see the day that it can be called a mariage and not a civil union.

And Don I'm shocked your 100% behind it.

[Don Corleone]

In the USA, marriage is a dual institution. THere is the legal aspect: you're entering into a legal contract in the eyes of the state. You now have certain responsiblities and certain rights. At the same time, you have the eclesiastical marriage. This is what Americans typically call "The church wedding".

Now, when you get married, you sign a contract called a marriage license. YOu apply for it at your local town/city hall. If you're not planning on getting married in a religious ceremony, the local judge or other officer of the court administers the contract and voila, you're legally married.

If you want to get religiously married as well, the contract remains completed but not yet validated. You present it to your minister/priest/rabbi who becomes an unpaid employee of the state for about 2 minutes during the course of the relgious ceremony when he administers your state's particular vows. Then the minister/priest/rabbi signs the contract and poof you're legally married AND religiously married.

In all but name, civil unions mirror legal marriage almost perfectly. There is no difference in rights or responsbilities between being legally married only and entering a civil union.

Which has led me to question the motive of homosexual groups that refuse civil unions and want to hold out for full-fledged marriage. I believe, and have stated whenever it comes up, that the reason gay lobbyist groups have taken this stance is they want to use the institution of marriage to force religions to formally accept homosexuality across the board. Since they are now legally entitled to the sacrament of marriage, they can then claim that the minister/priest/rabbi is discriminating against them by not performing the service. This is why I'm in favor of civil unions. I think we should change legal marriage to a civil union for straight couples as well, and voila, problem solved. Marriage is a religious institution. It shouldn't be enshrined in law. That's what a civil union should do.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In the USA, marriage is a dual institution. THere is the legal aspect: you're entering into a legal contract in the eyes of the state. You now have certain responsiblities and certain rights. At the same time, you have the eclesiastical marriage. This is what Americans typically call "The church wedding".


It can be a dual institution but its not always . Legaly only the state marriage is binding. Many an american never has a church wedding. The state doesnt need the church to conduct marriage ceremonies.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm pleased to hear the news and agree with the sentiment that this approach should spread. I'm dubious about how soon such an idea may take root here in Utah, though. We have a very strong conservative bent, and one that's not to welcoming to homosexuality. Regardless of how reasonable the approach is, I fear many would oppose it just for the sake of opposing anything that might improve the condition of homosexuals.

Ajax

[IrishArmenian]

Bout darn time. I hope this little idea will migrate to Texas. Keeps the churchy folks from crying about the sanctity of mariage. And it gives homosexual couples what they wanted. Still would like to see the day that it can be called a mariage and not a civil union.

And Don I'm shocked your 100% behind it.

I agree, except I hope it is called marriage and I don't care much for this civil union talk.

[doc_bean]

Wait, we all agree ?

~:grouphug:

EDIT: so what were those endless debates about the issue we've had here about then ???

[Gawain of Orkeny]

EDIT: so what were those endless debates about the issue we've had here about then ???


I guess you missed the post before yours


I agree, except I hope it is called marriage and I don't care much for this civil union talk.

[doc_bean]

I guess you missed the post before yours


I agree, except I hope it is called marriage and I don't care much for this civil union talk.

Honestly, I didn't quite get this post. I figured IrishAmermenian was just questioning what it should be called, which is really only a secondary issue, as long as there is technical or legal definition, people can call something what they want in every day use.

Or am I totally missing the point here ? :huh2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Or am I totally missing the point here ?

Totally.:laugh4:

[doc_bean]

Totally.:laugh4:

Hey I'm just a dumb foreigner. Need a cab ?

[Ronin]

I really don´t get it either.....

this entire thing was about semantics??? what was all the arguing about then?

anyway...it´s a good thing it´s going forward....if they call it marriage, civil-union, bag-of-figs....whatever....it doesn´t change what it is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd rather they call heterosexual unions Civil partnerships than vice versa. I don't want homosexual presure groups to have any leverage they can use to try and twist the arm of religious institutions. For one thing all those institutions are "locked in" to their beliefs and trying to force change against scripture just won't work.

The reason the C of E backs the Conservatives these days is because it has been shown that parishes with over-liberal bishops will just go and find a bishop in conservative Africa.

The American Episclocle (sp?) Church will almost certainly be ejected from the Anglican Union at the next Synod because they are flouting not just Dogma but the Bible by blessing homosexual unions.

So, in summery, I agree with Don.

[Don Corleone]

It's not just semantics. By keeping the contract defined as a 'civil union' there is no presumption, legally, into the religious sphere of marriage. When the state allows homosexual marraige, those institutions (such as most Christian churches, orthodox synagogues and just about any mosque) that won't perform the service are considered in violation of the law. Trust me, there'd be a 14th ammendment equal protection class-action suit faster than you can say "Lambda".

By keeping the term 'Civil Union', you make it abundantly clear that it abides in the legal domain only (should a church CHOOSE to allow for gay marriage, such as the Episcopal church, they can, but those that don't are under no requirement to do so).

This is what I've tried to say all along, every time this issue comes up. I agree, if any further compromises are required, it's changing the term for a legal marriage (as opposed to a religiuos one) between straight couples to civil union as well.

[PanzerJaeger]

This thread needs some dissention... and fast!

Those nasty queer-folk need to take their homo lovin, guy on guy.... ahh, I cant even be bothered.

Ya, sounds fine to me. Nice explanations Don, but I dont understand the turtle. :inquisitive:

[Ronin]

It's not just semantics. By keeping the contract defined as a 'civil union' there is no presumption, legally, into the religious sphere of marriage. When the state allows homosexual marraige, those institutions (such as most Christian churches, orthodox synagogues and just about any mosque) that won't perform the service are considered in violation of the law. Trust me, there'd be a 14th ammendment equal protection class-action suit faster than you can say "Lambda".

By keeping the term 'Civil Union', you make it abundantly clear that it abides in the legal domain only (should a church CHOOSE to allow for gay marriage, such as the Episcopal church, they can, but those that don't are under no requirement to do so).

This is what I've tried to say all along, every time this issue comes up. I agree, if any further compromises are required, it's changing the term for a legal marriage (as opposed to a religiuos one) between straight couples to civil union as well.


but how could there ever be a concern for a law that would FORCE a church to allow a specific group?

certainly you couldn´t put in the law that a church HAD to marry gay ppl.....that´s just too insane....it wouldn´t happen.


:idea2: wait....we´re talking about america.........uhm....:dizzy2: maybe it would be a cause for concern...


over here the discussion was always should gays be allowed to marry (be it by state or church) it´s the civil tie itself that is discussed.

[Lemur]

but how could there ever be a concern for a law that would FORCE a church to allow a specific group?
Slope. Slippery. It's an argument that I've only heard put forward by extremist radio shock jocks, such as Michael Savage.

And I know exactly what that turtle's about. Oh yeah. Hell yeah.

[doc_bean]

This is what I've tried to say all along, every time this issue comes up. I agree, if any further compromises are required, it's changing the term for a legal marriage (as opposed to a religiuos one) between straight couples to civil union as well.

Sure. We've separated state and church marriage (sorry...civil unions) ages ago, isn't the separation of church and state one of the pillars of (western) democracy ?

I honestly don't get what the big problem always was if we all agree on this (except perhaps IrishAmenian, but I'm not certain what he meant by his post). I distinctly remember some people here arguing that it was about health benefits and costs for companies and whatnot, and other people arguing that they had the same rights already, to marry someone of the opposite sex, so they shouldn't complain.

Now you're telling me this was all because of how it was worded ? :huh2: :huh2: :huh2:

Seriously, you (USians) should have been able to settle this long ago then...

[Kralizec]

I don't really care about the semantics of it myself, but I can see that it's a good solution for the reason Don mentioned.

Frankly, homosexual couples who'd actually go as far as court to get their union sanctioned by a church should consider changing their religion instead.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ya, sounds fine to me. Nice explanations Don, but I dont understand the turtle. :inquisitive:


https://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2980/photoswu2.jpg

:inquisitive:

Why not call the government thing marriage? That's what it is. There's no religious ceremony involved in a common law marriage.

[Crazed Rabbit]

but how could there ever be a concern for a law that would FORCE a church to allow a specific group?

People try to have laws forcing Catholic churches to provide for contraceptives in their insurance programs for employees. Others try to force them to let homosexuals use Catholic adoption agencies/abortions.

CR

[TevashSzat]

Which has led me to question the motive of homosexual groups that refuse civil unions and want to hold out for full-fledged marriage. I believe, and have stated whenever it comes up, that the reason gay lobbyist groups have taken this stance is they want to use the institution of marriage to force religions to formally accept homosexuality across the board. Since they are now legally entitled to the sacrament of marriage, they can then claim that the minister/priest/rabbi is discriminating against them by not performing the service.

There was a good south park parody on this in the episode called follow that egg in which the same problem was posed and the same answer came up except instead of calling it civil unions, everyone became but buddies.

What the episode said basically was that if civil unions and marriage was essentially the same things, why can't homosexual couples get married? It is not like there is anything different between the two so why are people still against have homosexual couples getting married? Is it just the word that the people like which allows them to support civil unions and not marriages?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What the episode said basically was that if civil unions and marriage was essentially the same things, why can't homosexual couples get married? It is not like there is anything different between the two so why are people still against have homosexual couples getting married? Is it just the word that the people like which allows them to support civil unions and not marriages?


Because most people still know that marriage is all about procreation. At least they do here in the US. Sure theres lots of other reasons but thats why marriage was invented. So the state would know who belongs to who and what belongs to who. They could give to :daisy: if your in love or having sex unless this sex is producing children.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because most people still know that marriage is all about procreation. At least they do here in the US. Sure theres lots of other reasons but thats why marriage was invented. So the state would know who belongs to who and what belongs to who. They could give to :daisy: if your in love or having sex unless this sex is producing children.

"[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live AND HAVE LOTS OF BABIES?"

Which part did I add?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

"[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live

Is that part of a civil union? I dont think so. Thats the whole point. You can say what you like at the ceremony be it civil or church but its all meaningless. The state does not require any of that. If it did there wouldnt be divorce. I bet there isnt divorce for people joined in civil unions. They just end the contract. The state can not regualte an emition such as love nor require it. Now is there still any question why weve had so many long debates on this issue? :laugh4:



Which part did I add?

The whole thing.


I dont see why its so hard for many of you to realise why marriage was invented. It wasnt invented by any church but by the state. Remember theres always been a power struggle between church and state.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Those are marriage vows. You said marriage is all about procreation. This is clearly not the case.

Why not call the government contract a marriage? That's what that kind of union between two people is called.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Those are marriage vows. You said marriage is all about procreation. This is clearly not the case.



Duh......Those are marriage vows written solely to join a man and a woman. They were written by the church not the state. Theres nothin in any state marriage license requiring any of that. Its a contract just like a civil union. The vows are personal not legal.


Why not call the government contract a marriage? That's what that kind of union between two people is called.

Because its not. There are lots of contracts between two people. And the whole point is that currently its not called a marriage because they dont meet the requirements for getting a marriage license. That being it takes a man and a woman. Now why do you think humans all over the world since the invention of the institution have required at least one person of each gender? Is there something inherent or that can be expected from such a union that would make it different from other unions or contracts?

[AntiochusIII]

Duh......Those are marriage vows written solely to join a man and a woman. They were written by the church not the state. Theres nothin in any state marriage license requiring any of that. Its a contract just like a civil union. The vows are personal not legal.Do you sincerely believe that the legal definition of marriage is make babies?

[Lemur]

You mean to say that all this time I could have been married and not had babies? Now you tell me?

[Redleg]

All one has to do is look into the history of Marriage and how the state uses the institution of marriage.

Civil Unions is a good solution to the legal rights being transfered between two willing partners.

[Spino]

You mean to say that all this time I could have been married and nothad babies? Now you tell me?
What?!? You mean all this time you've been an Orgah you haven't been popping out lemurites outside the bonds of holy matrimony? And here I thought you were the furriest, third person talkin' playa on the block... ~:pimp:

[Xiahou]

All one has to do is look into the history of Marriage and how the state uses the institution of marriage.

Civil Unions is a good solution to the legal rights being transfered between two willing partners.
Yup. To me it's not about equal rights or anything of the sort. It's about extending new privileges to certain peoples. If the people of New Hampshire want to do that, then it's their business- so long as they do it fairly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's about extending new privileges to certain peoples.

Certain people as in "everybody"?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Certain people as in "everybody"?


Isnt that what you want?

[Pindar]

I've been saying all along that I oppose gay marriage but support civil unions...

Why do you support civil unions?

[Don Corleone]

I support civil unions because at the end of the day, regardless of how people choose to frame it, married couples get granted certain priveleges. The ability to make medical decisions; the right to carry each other on one's insurance; an expectation of an equitable division of marital assests when said union dissolves. All of these things are 'perks' to getting married. I view it as discriminatory that a homosexual couple wouldn't be elligible to receive the same privileges, provided they make the same commitments and assume the same responsbilities as heterosexual couples.

You can claim that society, or the government, has a vested interest in seeing heterosexual couples in permanent relationships. Sure. But I would argue by the same logic that society also has a vested interest in seeing homosexual couples in a stable, permanent relationship. Because society benefits not necessarily from child rearing, but domestic partnership in general.

What's more, I don't think our rights are 'qualified' by the equivalent value that society or the government gets in exchange. If we have the right to marry, that's a stand-alone right, regardless of whether society or the government want us to have it or not.

See, at the end of the day, i would end legal marriage all together. As for health insurance, I would argue you should be able to claim one other adult you wish to provide for, regardless of who they are or what their relationship is. As for making medical decisions, doesn't power of attorney do that, if you structure it to do so? Inheritance is already possible, you don't need legal marriage to name somebody as your beneficiary.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Where does the assumption that marriage is fundementally religious come from?

[Don Corleone]

Gee, I don't know Sasaki. Thousands of years of religious services called weddings, perhaps? Where was Jesus at when he changed the water to wine again? Something tells me it wasn't a Justice of the Peace executing a strictly civil governmental contract...

[Pindar]

I support civil unions because at the end of the day, regardless of how people choose to frame it, married couples get granted certain priveleges.

Do you feel all consensual relationships made by adults should be granted the same privileges?


The ability to make medical decisions; the right to carry each other on one's insurance; an expectation of an equitable division of marital assests when said union dissolves. All of these things are 'perks' to getting married. I view it as discriminatory that a homosexual couple wouldn't be elligible to receive the same privileges, provided they make the same commitments and assume the same responsbilities as heterosexual couples.

All law discriminates by definition. For example, that an 18 year old can vote and a 17 year old cannot is discriminatory. The issue is whether one feels the discrimination is justified or no. A discrimination argument moves the discussion into the moral arena.


What's more, I don't think our rights are 'qualified' by the equivalent value that society or the government gets in exchange. If we have the right to marry, that's a stand-alone right, regardless of whether society or the government want us to have it or not.

Does this mean you take the position rights are derived independent of any polity i.e. via natural law?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Gee, I don't know Sasaki. Thousands of years of religious services called weddings, perhaps? Where was Jesus at when he changed the water to wine again? Something tells me it wasn't a Justice of the Peace executing a strictly civil governmental contract...

I didn't say traditionally I said fundamentally.

[Don Corleone]

I didn't say traditionally I said fundamentally.

We're going to argue in circles with this one. It's like the God argument. I'm going to argue that it's the divine recognition of the union that makes it a valid marriage in the first place. You're going to argue that since the existence of a divinity cannot be proven empirically, there is no divinity to recognize in the first place, and you'll ask what fundamentally alters the relationship (sanctioned marriages versus marriages in name only). Using nothing but empirical observation of human behavior, which I suspect is all you'll allow into this discussion, nothing. A divine institution requires a belief in a divinity to exist in the first place.

My point would be without a belief in a divine being to bless the union in the first place, what is the point of marriage at all? What is 'civil marriage'? Nothing really, at least not to me. I think the Scandanavians are correct if that's all you're going for. Why not just cohabitate? What is the point of marriage? What is the point of wanting to get married if you don't believe in it?

[Don Corleone]

Do you feel all consensual relationships made by adults should be granted the same privileges? Yes, I do.



All law discriminates by definition. For example, that an 18 year old can vote and a 17 year old cannot is discriminatory. The issue is whether one feels the discrimination is justified or no. A discrimination argument moves the discussion into the moral arena. That is correct. And to me, in order for the government to grant itself the right to discriminate, i.e. enumerate itself a new power/authority not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, it needs to demonstrate an overwhelmingly compelling interest. In your example, the government has an overwhelmingly compelling interest to make certain that elections are conducted among those that are likely to understand the choices being posed to them.



Does this mean you take the position rights are derived independent of any polity i.e. via natural law? Yes. Any rights we hold exist with or without a government in existence to recognize and respect them (or not respect them, as the case may be).

[Vladimir]

The big difference between the two is that Marriage is a trap. That and there are no shotguns at Civil Unions.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We're going to argue in circles with this one. It's like the God argument. I'm going to argue that it's the divine recognition of the union that makes it a valid marriage in the first place. You're going to argue that since the existence of a divinity cannot be proven empirically, there is no divinity to recognize in the first place, and you'll ask what fundamentally alters the relationship (sanctioned marriages versus marriages in name only). Using nothing but empirical observation of human behavior, which I suspect is all you'll allow into this discussion, nothing. A divine institution requires a belief in a divinity to exist in the first place.

My point would be without a belief in a divine being to bless the union in the first place, what is the point of marriage at all? What is 'civil marriage'? Nothing really, at least not to me. I think the Scandanavians are correct if that's all you're going for. Why not just cohabitate? What is the point of marriage? What is the point of wanting to get married if you don't believe in it?

I honestly had no clue that people thought it was important that god sanctify their marriage.

It's important because it's a public ceremony where they pledge to be together. They are telling everyone that they are married and will have to explain if they decide to break up.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We're going to argue in circles with this one. It's like the God argument. I'm going to argue that it's the divine recognition of the union that makes it a valid marriage in the first place. You're going to argue that since the existence of a divinity cannot be proven empirically, there is no divinity to recognize in the first place, and you'll ask what fundamentally alters the relationship (sanctioned marriages versus marriages in name only). Using nothing but empirical observation of human behavior, which I suspect is all you'll allow into this discussion, nothing. A divine institution requires a belief in a divinity to exist in the first place.



I hate to disagree with you Don but religion really has no place in this argument. Marriage was invent4ed by the state not the church. This whole disscussion is about legal terms.It has nothing to do with religion at all. The state neither requires you be religous nor that a church marry you in order to be legally wed and recieve the benifits of marriage.

The whole point is the state is really only concerend with property rights and inheritances. In other words whos responsible for who and what. Once more if the union of a man and a woman never produced children there would be no suchthing as marriage as we know it today.


Yes, I do.


So then we could all join in one big civil union? This is the problem people. It makes marriage nothing special at all anymore.


That is correct. And to me, in order for the government to grant itself the right to discriminate, i.e. enumerate itself a new power/authority not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, it needs to demonstrate an overwhelmingly compelling interest. In your example, the government has an overwhelmingly compelling interest to make certain that elections are conducted among those that are likely to understand the choices being posed to them.


Ive told you what that interest is.


Yes. Any rights we hold exist with or without a government in existence to recognize and respect them (or not respect them, as the case may be).
Today 20:05


There is no "right" to marriage. I thought you were a conservative :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

So then we could all join in one big civil union? This is the problem people. It makes marriage nothing special at all anymore.


Errr....so what ?

besides, you're only supposed to do it once in a lifetime, which should make it pretty special, no matter how many gays get married, it's still going to be a unique and special event in your life.

(Pretty much) everyone loses their virginity at some point in time, does that mean it sin't anything special to the person ? It's all about how you look at it, personally, it's not about what other people do.

[Don Corleone]

Marriage was invented by the State, not the Church? Interesting position. So let me ask you what I asked Sasaki... what exactly was Jesus doing at Cana? Deuteronomy and Leviticus date back to approximately 1500B.C. English Common Law, maybe 500 A.D at best. You're still going to argue that there was a civil institution prior to a religious one?

As somebody who is fairly devout, I really could care less about the institution of civil marriage. It was a mistake to introduce a religious institution into the laws of a constitutionally secular nation in the first place. I would correct the mistake by ending the secular version tomorrow. What is the point of marriage between two agnostics? How does it differ in any way then a long term two-party agreement (no State oversight)? Do you need the local government to declare your love for your wife is valid? I don't. I'm only interested in God's approval.

As for my conservative credentials, well, I'm not worried about them. If you are, I appreciate your concern. ~:pat:

[Don Corleone]

I honestly had no clue that people thought it was important that god sanctify their marriage.

It's important because it's a public ceremony where they pledge to be together. They are telling everyone that they are married and will have to explain if they decide to break up.

Everybody else is just there for the great exchange of food & booze versus presents. ~:D My only thought in getting married was the recognition of the union between by wife and I before our God. If we had been married by a priest in the woods, with no witnesses, it would have been every bit as valid to me. What can you or 1000 other witnesses possibly have to say about the relationship between my wife and I? Don't take offense to that, I lump my extended family in that same category. They were just there for the party as far as I was concerned. The service itself, that was between my wife, my God and myself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Everybody else is just there for the great exchange of food & booze versus presents. ~:D My only thought in getting married was the recognition of the union between by wife and I before our God. If we had been married by a priest in the woods, with no witnesses, it would have been every bit as valid to me. What can you or 1000 other witnesses possibly have to say about the relationship between my wife and I? Don't take offense to that, I lump my extended family in that same category. They were just there for the party as far as I was concerned. The service itself, that was between my wife, my God and myself.

I don't have any stats on this, but I would bet most atheists get married with a ceremony and vows.

[Don Corleone]

I don't have any stats on this, but I would bet most atheists get married with a ceremony and vows.

Oh, they do. I'll wager probably 95% of them do. I'm simply saying I personally have no idea WHY they do. What's the point, to them? Do they need my approval or yours or their local city council's on their relationship?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh, they do. I'll wager probably 95% of them do. I'm simply saying I personally have no idea WHY they do. What's the point, to them? Do they need my approval or yours or their local city council's on their relationship?

For the same reason we celebrate Christmas?

[Don Corleone]

If you want to throw a party to have everybody celebrate that you're commited, great. But what is the point of pledging yourselves to each other for eternity before God when you don't believe in God or eternity?

[Pindar]

Yes, I do.

Then, you have no issue with incestuous or polygamous marriages?


That is correct. And to me, in order for the government to grant itself the right to discriminate, i.e. enumerate itself a new power/authority not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, it needs to demonstrate an overwhelmingly compelling interest. In your example, the government has an overwhelmingly compelling interest to make certain that elections are conducted among those that are likely to understand the choices being posed to them.

Do you consider the state not recognizing gay marriage a new power/authority?

How do you determine what constitutes an overwhelmingly compelling interest?



Yes. Any rights we hold exist with or without a government in existence to recognize and respect them (or not respect them, as the case may be).

Explain the natural law to gay marriage.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you want to throw a party to have everybody celebrate that you're commited, great. But what is the point of pledging yourselves to each other for eternity before God when you don't believe in God or eternity?

"[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live"

[Don Corleone]

Pindar,

I have no problems with consenting adults who are engaged in incestuous or polygamous unions receiving the same benefits that society provides to heterosexual couples. They need not be in an intimate relationship, as far as I'm concerned, you could have platonic legal marriages for all I care. I don't see a reason for civil marriage, on it's own, at all. I don't. To me, marriage is a very religious thing and in keeping with the Separation Clause of the First ammendment, I would argue that the government has no business in the marriage business. Since it happens to be there, how can you, without using religious arguments, deny the legal relationship to homosexual couples?

As for Natural Law, it is derived from God's law. I believe this is where you are taking me with regards to the question about Natural Law and homosexuality. Fair enough. In my religious tradition, homsexuality is immoral. So are lying, fornicating and drinking to excess, three acts I personally have engaged in. Does that mean that I have forefitted any rights I enjoy by virtue of Natural Law? I thought that was the whole point of inalienable. That no matter what you do, your inalienable rights cannot be stripped from you.

[Don Corleone]

"[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live"

You are pledging your fidelity (and I would argue that the particular marriage vows you selected are a crock.... there's not even a hint of 'till death do you part' in them anymore) to your spouse. But in removing God from the equation, who acts as guarantor of that promise? The justice of the peace?

It's very clear to me that you and I have very different defintions of marriage. You appear to view it as akin to joining a club, only a club of two. In reward for forming and joining this club, all your friends come by and you throw a big party and celebrate.

I view it as a eternal vow from which I will never be released. In making it, I am asking my God to bless the union and simultaneously to act as guaranteer of the contract I make with my wife. Essentially, I am asking Him to dwell within our marriage and make it complete. I'm sure that sounds like jibberish to you, but it's very real to me, and it is the only reason for getting married, from my perspective.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Marriage was invented by the State, not the Church? Interesting position. So let me ask you what I asked Sasaki... what exactly was Jesus doing at Cana? Deuteronomy and Leviticus date back to approximately 1500B.C. English Common Law, maybe 500 A.D at best. You're still going to argue that there was a civil institution prior to a religious one?


Don, Don ,Don ,what am I do with you? Are you saying no one got married until there was a church? Or a religion? You do realise again this religous aspect has abosoutely nothing to do with this thread. We are talking of the law here. As far as I remember it woulld be unconstitutional for the government to take religion into this matter.

Heres a few interesting quotes from the

HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION



When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.


The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval.

So the Romans didnt need either of them. Im sure when someone died however the first thing that was asked was are they married?


Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.






Marriage in Medieval Europe


The rise of Christianity produced a profound change in European marriage laws and customs, although this change came about only gradually. The first Christian emperors were more or less content with the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.


In the following centuries, however, marriage came more and more under the influence of the church. Compared to Rome, the newly Christianized countries of Northern Europe had rather barbaric marriage customs and treated women little better than domestic slaves.

Damn Catholics.

Now heres what your actually getting at


Furthermore, theologians increasingly found a religious significance in marriage and eventually even included it among the sacraments. This also endowed a formerly rather prosaic arrangement with a new dignity.

Now marriage was blessed by god and the church. It was sanctified. But this has nothing to do with the law. At least not here in the US. Civil Unions bring us sort of back to the Roman ways with marriage being nothing special. If thats what society wants so be it. Its certainly going downhill fast anyway.

LINK (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html)

I used to make the same argument you do. But again the church or religion can have no bearing on the law here.


I don't have any stats on this, but I would bet most atheists get married with a ceremony and vows.

Yeah a judge and a poem they made up :beam:

Its not the same as religous vows although it can be and many a religous vow is just as meaningless or we wouldnt have so many divorces. The church wedding makes it a double wammy. Church and state sanction together.


"[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live"

Why are we limited to two people here? What does live together in marriage mean? Now the state cant demand that you love someone in order to marry them as you suggest here either. These vows have nothing to do with the law. Their only words.


You are pledging your fidelity (and I would argue that the particular marriage vows you selected are a crock.... there's not even a hint of 'till death do you part' in them anymore) to your spouse. But in removing God from the equation, who acts as guarantor of that promise? The justice of the peace?


Well isnt that the case for everyone in the US who has gotten a civil marriage? Can god give you visitation rights?


I view it as a eternal vow from which I will never be released. In making it, I am asking my God to bless the union and simultaneously to act as guaranteer of the contract I make with my wife. Essentially, I am asking Him to dwell within our marriage and make it complete.

Now your talking. And I would suppose having a child is a big part of making that marriage complete. This is the good old fashioned idea of marriage thats sadly slipping away. Nowdays people are lucky to stay together long enough to raise the kids. Its all me. Self sacrifice and loyalty seem to be a thing of the past. Well these things usually go in cycles. Hopefully it will turn around again someday soon.


besides, you're only supposed to do it once in a lifetime, which should make it pretty special, no matter how many gays get married, it's still going to be a unique and special event in your life.


I could say the same about a bowel movement :laugh4:

[Pindar]

Pindar,

I have no problems with consenting adults who are engaged in incestuous or polygamous unions receiving the same benefits that society provides to heterosexual couples.

Interesting. How far are you willing to push this?


To me, marriage is a very religious thing and in keeping with the Separation Clause of the First ammendment, I would argue that the government has no business in the marriage business.

Marriage is traditionally seen as a three party contract. There are the two individuals and the state which serves as the guarantor to the compact. If the state is removed from the contract then what is to enforce or arbitrate any breach? For example, if a fellow after being married several years decided he wants to move on so he confiscates all the money in the joint bank account as well as all other items of value in the household what recourse does the woman have? Clerics do not have the power to address this issue. If the state is not involved then the woman cannot appeal to the state for redress. Do you see the problem?



Since it happens to be there, how can you, without using religious arguments, deny the legal relationship to homosexual couples?

Do you mean besides the its yucky argument?

The exclusion of a religious basis for any legal standard is problematic. Even so, the simple answer is why should the state recognize gay marriage? If one makes a claim on the state the onus is on the one making the claim not the authority to whom the claim is made. If the claim is based on a rights appeal then one must explain the wherefore of that assumed right. You have opted for a natural law standard to ground any rights claim. This means you would need to explain the natural law to gay marriage.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It should also be noted that civil unions don't get the same federal benefits as marriages and the other states aren't required to recognize them. So there is more difference than just the name.

It's funny that all the people who are saying marriage is a religious institution weren't complaining about it being legally called marriage before gay people wanted to get married.

[doc_bean]

I could say the same about a bowel movement :laugh4:

Doesn't exactly counter my point, now does it ?

@Don: many atheists get married because their spouses forced them too :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Doesn't exactly counter my point, now does it ?


Sure it does.


It's funny that all the people who are saying marriage is a religious institution weren't complaining about it being legally called marriage before gay people wanted to get married.
:inquisitive:

They still want to call marriage , marriage, whats your point here?


It should also be noted that civil unions don't get the same federal benefits as marriages and the other states aren't required to recognize them. So there is more difference than just the name.


How many states have civil unions? Only this one isnt it? I wouldnt expect them to get federal benifits since its a state law.

[doc_bean]

Sure it does.



:inquisitive:

YOU: gay marriage wouldn't make marriage special anymore
ME: why does it have to be special ? Besides, wouldn't the fact that it's something you do only once make it special ?
YOU: I could say the same about bowel movement
ME: That doesn't have anything to do with what i just said.
YOU: yes it does. It disproves your entire point ! Bowel movement FTW !


I had forgotten how discussion with you usually turn into 'yes it does', 'no it doesn't' arguments. You really should have gone into politics. :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

YOU: gay marriage wouldn't make marriage special anymore
ME: why does it have to be special ? Besides, wouldn't the fact that it's something you do only once make it special ?
YOU: I could say the same about bowel movement
ME: That doesn't have anything to do with what i just said.
YOU: yes it does. It disproves your entire point ! Bowel movement FTW !


This is what I call selective memory :laugh4:


besides, you're only supposed to do it once in a lifetime, which should make it pretty special, no matter how many gays get married, it's still going to be a unique and special event in your life.


I could say the same about a bowel movement

Thats the direct quote.

[Ser Clegane]

Wow - if bowel movement is similarly unique as marriage to you, you either had quite a lot of marriages or you are suffering from one hell of an obstipation :uhoh:

J/K

[doc_bean]

Well SC gave a better reply than could probably come up with, but your spin is impressive, the republicans really lost a good politican on you.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow - if bowel movement is similarly unique as marriage to you, you either had quite a lot of marriages or you are suffering from one hell of an obstipation

Many a marriage has gone down the :daisy: :laugh4:


It was a joke and it fit in well with
it's still going to be a unique and special event in your life.




besides, you're only supposed to do it once in a lifetime, which should make it pretty special, no matter how many gays get married,

Well the once in a lifetime bit has pretty much gone out the window. The point is marriage already isnt nearly as special as it used to be. The looser you make the qualifications the less special something becomes. Its a no brainer.

[doc_bean]

Well the once in a lifetime bit has pretty much gone out the window. The point is marriage already isnt nearly as special as it used to be. The looser you make the qualifications the less special something becomes. Its a no brainer.

Right, my 2 points

1. Why should it be special from society's viewpoint ? It is still something special in most people's life, why would it be any less special to them because of what other people do ?

2. If marriage is already so 'loose', with all the divorces and such, why do you insist on keeping gays from marrying, compared to the percentage of the population that divorced heterosexuals, not too mention the cheating, and stay-married-for show-kind, represent, the amount of gay people wanting to get married is tiny. What impact do they have ? (As someone who lives in a country that has gay marriage: it really isn't a big deal, you don't notice the difference in day to day live, seriously).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why should it be special from society's viewpoint

So why have marriage?


? It is still something special in most people's life, why would it be any less special to them because of what other people do

If their really in love why would it be any less special to them without state sanction?


If marriage is already so 'loose', with all the divorces and such, why do you insist on keeping gays from marrying, compared to the percentage of the population that divorced heterosexuals, not too mention the cheating, and stay-married-for show-kind, represent, the amount of gay people wanting to get married is tiny. What impact do they have ? (As someone who lives in a country that has gay marriage: it really isn't a big deal, you don't notice the difference in day to day live, seriously).

Because you just dont get it. You can say marriage is about this and that but at the end of the day its still all about the union of a man and a woman and the offspring they produce. This is the states underlyng reason for marriage, not love or any of the :daisy: you guys spout. Its my position that any marriage that doesnt produce children is an incomplete one. You people constantly try to takethe exception and make it the rule as in"well not all heterosexual marriages can or do produce children" Thats not the point. If they do the state wants to know whos responsible for them. They never have to worry about this with homosexual unions. The whole thing that always made marriage special to the society was you are probagating that society and its sanctioning it.Again if no heterosexual unions ever produced children there would be no such thing as marriage as we know it today. I dont see how anyone can argue this point.

[doc_bean]

So why have marriage?



A good question. For my part we could get rid of it all together, you'd just need some new laws to compensate, for insurance and inheritence and things like that.





Because you just dont get it. You can say marriage is about this and that but at the end of the day its still all about the union of a man and a woman and the offspring they produce. This is the states underlyng reason for marriage, not love or any of the :daisy: you guys spout. Its my position that any marriage that doesnt produce children is an incomplete one. You people constantly try to takethe exception and make it the rule as in"well not all heterosexual marriages can or do produce children" Thats not the point. If they do the state wants to know whos responsible for them. They never have to worry about this with homosexual unions. The whole thing that always made marriage special to the society was you are probagating that society and its sanctioning it.Again if no heterosexual unions ever produced children there would be no such thing as marriage as we know it today. I dont see how anyone can argue this point.


While mostly true, marriage for the sake of offspring is a rather outdated concept , millions of children are born outside of wedlock, as for who is resposbile, it's rather obvious who the mother is when a child is born, and DNA tests can easily identify the father, they can both be held responsible, like it already is today with unmarried people that have children. No big deal.

You can't base today's laws on the situationa thousand years ago if it just doesn't apply anymore. Besides, no less children are going to be produced when gay people get married, so what's your problem ?

Marriage wasn't 'invented' for the sake of having children BTW, it was just a way to insure men that the children 'their' woman had were really theirs. Marriage wasn't there for the children, it was there for the husbands.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

While mostly true, marriage for the sake of offspring is a rather outdated concept , millions of children are born outside of wedlock, as for who is resposbile, it's rather obvious who the mother is when a child is born, and DNA tests can easily identify the father, they can both be held responsible, like it already is today with unmarried people that have children. No big deal.



No family unit is no big deal? This is the whole point. The state uses marriage for structure. Its an easy book keeping method. Now look at all the :daisy: your dragging in here. Do you think having children without the benifit of marriage is a good thing and should be encouraged? Im pretty sure even today a large portion of marriages are because their about to have a child.


You can't base today's laws on the situationa thousand years ago if it just doesn't apply anymore.



Thats what all laws are based on. In fact most of what you advocate was how it was thousands of years ago except gay marriage. Even they never contimplated it. Your progress would take us backwards.



Marriage wasn't 'invented' for the sake of having children BTW, it was just a way to insure men that the children 'their' woman had were really theirs.

Thats exactly what Ive kept telling you. Now this problem will never arise with a homosexual marriage will it? I rest my case.

[doc_bean]

No family unit is no big deal? This is the whole point. The state uses marriage for structure. Its an easy book keeping method. Now look at all the :daisy: your dragging in here. Do you think having children without the benifit of marriage is a good thing and should be encouraged? Im pretty sure even today a large portion of marriages are because their about to have a child.


I think the idea of a 'family unit' will become somewhat of an outdated concept in the 21th century, with all the good and the bad associated with it. But that's 100% besides the point

The point is: gay people getting married doesn't mean straight people won't. So why shouldn't they allowed to get married ? If it's about the rights and priviledges: we don't make people take a fertility test before they get married either.




Thats exactly what Ive kept telling you. Now this problem will never arise with a homosexual marriage will it? I rest my case.

1. What if one of the partners already has a child from a previous relationship ? (other mother/father dead/divorced/ran away/take your pick)

2. What if they want to adopt ?

3. What if, in the case of women, they decide to get impregnated by someone else ?

4. What if, in the case of men, they find a woman to carry a child for them ?

Wouldn't society benefit from stable homosexual relationships also ? Why not allow them then, following your reasoning.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The point is: gay people getting married doesn't mean straight people won't

Thats not the point at all. Talk about a strawman argument. If people marry cows it wont stop striaght people from marrying either will it?


So why shouldn't they allowed to get married

Why should they. Whats the compelling reason for the state?


If it's about the rights and priviledges: we don't make people take a fertility test before they get married either.




What has fertility tests to do with rights and priviledges? I think you mean we dont require that people be fertile to marry. Would you like that to be a requirement?


. What if one of the partners already has a child from a previous relationship ? (other mother/father dead/divorced/ran away/take your pick)


Whats the problem here? You already know who the mother and father are. The partners getting married doesnt change things.


What if they want to adopt ?


You dont have to be married to adopt.


What if, in the case of women, they decide to get impregnated by someone else ?


What has this to do with their marriage. They cant impregnate eachother thats the point. Any woman can decide to get impregnated. What has a same gender partner or no partner at all got to do with it. Its funny how when men and women join in marriage or join in sexual union children are the usual result. Not only isnt this the usual result with same sex union its never the case.

As I said

You people constantly try to take the exception and make it the rule

Only here theres not even an exception.


4. What if, in the case of men, they find a woman to carry a child for them ?


What on earth are you talking about? What has this to do with homosexual marriage? A surrogate mother?


Wouldn't society benefit from stable homosexual relationships also ?

Well wouldnt it be nice if we were all in stable relationships. But again its not about a stable relationship for the sake of the individual but for the state. Its about a stable place to raise children . The state still has this archaic idea that children come from the union of a man and a woman.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

They still want to call marriage , marriage, whats your point here?

They didn't mind atheists going to the judge and getting a document that said they were married, but they do mind gays.



How many states have civil unions? Only this one isnt it? I wouldnt expect them to get federal benifits since its a state law.

If they called it a marriage they would get benefits.

[Xiahou]

If they called it a marriage they would get benefits.No they wouldn't. States recognize other state's marriages for convenience and because all the states have fairly similar marriage laws. However, should one state change something major- like allowing same-sex marriages, other states are under no obligation to recognize them. In fact, many states already have laws or even constitutional amendments on the books making it clear that they won't recognize same-sex marriages from other states.


Why should they. Whats the compelling reason for the state? That's what it comes down to for me. So homosexual couples can get tax benefits? It's already clear what the motivations behind the state recognizing traditional marriage were, but where's the need for homosexual marriages?

[doc_bean]

:sigh: like I said before, there's just no arguing with you, might as well try to convince a wall to move. But hey, i must be a masochist :wall:



Well wouldnt it be nice if we were all in stable relationships. But again its not about a stable relationship for the sake of the individual but for the state. Its about a stable place to raise children .


Hence my examples, which you claim have nothing to do with it. Wouldn't gay unions improve the stability of their relationships ? And since many of them have children (I believe most homosexuals actually do have kids, though maybe that has changed by now since homosexuality has become so much more accepted) this would carry the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage. Okay, so the kids aren't created within the marriage, they're still kids that need a stable environment, however they were born.

So why shouldn't homosexuals be able to get married ? Why should their children be discriminated against ?




The state still has this archaic idea that children come from the union of a man and a woman.

You say yourself that it's archaic, wouldn't it be better to change the laws then ? Stop giving so many benefits to people who happen to have a marriage contract and extend those benefits to anyone who wants them. Give people the right to name an heir that gets the good tax benefits, give people the right to include anyone else on their health insurance. Why do these things depend on a marriage contract ? The whole idea of a stable marriage is rapidly becoming outdated, it's time the laws recognize this change in society.

You talk about society and laws as if they are the highest good, but they exist to serve the individual. WE are the highest good, each and every one of us. We make society, and we make the laws, not the other way around. You claim the state has to have a benefit from giving someone a right, that's contrary to pretty much the entire principle of a free and democratic society, and certainly contrary to the Founding Fathers interpretation of it. The state is a necessary evil, it shouldn't give rights when it deems it beneficial. The basic assumption should be freedom, then rights are taken away to make society livable, a trade off has to made, does a rule do more good than bad ?

What 'bad' would gay marriage do ? How will it make society worse ? It can only improve society, hence, even from your social engineering viewpoint (which is, frankly, entirely inconsistent with your views on socialism afaik) gay unions are a good thing.

So why do you oppose them ?

EDIT: @Xiahou Tax benefits for married people is discrimination too IMO. Tax benefits for parents I agree with.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wouldn't gay unions improve the stability of their relationships ?

Why would it?


And since many of them have children (I believe most homosexuals actually do have kids, though maybe that has changed by now since homosexuality has become so much more accepted)

And Im the one thats hard to argue with huh?

NONE of them have children from a union with a member of the same gender. If they have children then most likely they are bi sexual. Ill bet most of these women had children by having sex with a man and vica versa. And I really doubt that MOST homosexuals have kids.


They didn't mind atheists going to the judge and getting a document that said they were married, but they do mind gays.


What arguement could they use against the athiest? Marriage is a civil union in itself. The religous aspect is secondary at best.


Okay, so the kids aren't created within the marriage, they're still kids that need a stable environment, however they were born.


Wasnt it you who brought it up that most kids are brought up fine without their parents being married? How does a piece of paper make things so much more stable if the meaning behind the institution is shot?


So why shouldn't homosexuals be able to get married ?

Why cant I marry my cat? I really love him :laugh4:


Why should their children be discriminated against ?


Their not. Unless you mean other kids making fun of them.


You say yourself that it's archaic

I see my sarcasm was totaly wasted on you.


Stop giving so many benefits to people who happen to have a marriage contract and extend those benefits to anyone who wants them.

Here we agree. I should be able to list who I want to visit me in hospital and the like. A lving will is a good idea nowdays. I dont need marriage for any of this. I also dont think its right to give people benifits just because their married. I do however understand how its in the states interest to promote marriage, But thats only under the old meaning of marriage. The way it is today there are two few marriages that stay the course. Hence little stablity. Since I was a kid Ive seen family and community go down the drain here in the US.


We make society, and we make the laws, not the other way around

And we, the people of america, say we dont want gay marriage in overwhelming numbers. Whats your problem here? Its as it should be according to you.


You claim the state has to have a benefit from giving someone a right,


No, I claim that marriage is never a right.


that's contrary to pretty much the entire principle of a free and democratic society, and certainly contrary to the Founding Fathers interpretation of it.

It certainly is not. You notice they havent made gay marriage legal ant where I know of. Same sex marriage is no the samething. The founding fathers would be turning in their graves at the very thought of gay marriage. What an abomination. Its an oxymoron in itself.


It can only improve society, hence, even from your social engineering viewpoint (which is, frankly, entirely inconsistent with your views on socialism afaik) gay unions are a good thing.


What can I possibly reply to that ? :wall:

[Navaros]

"Civil Unions" is one of the most fraudulent misnomers of all-time. There is nothing at all "civil" about profane behaviours that this misnomer is pasted over or about any society than condones them.

[AntiochusIII]

"Civil Unions" is one of the most fraudulent misnomers of all-time. There is nothing at all "civil" about profane behaviours that this misnomer is pasted over or about any society than condones them.Aye, aye! This man speaks much sense. Ban sex, I say! Profane, 'tis!

That and you really need to open up your eyes, doc_bean. You know full well what gay marriage can do to the foundations of our society. You know, it will really do it. Somehow. Also, they're gays, they don't deserve rights. Or privileges. Someone said so. And I say that just because. :yes:

[doc_bean]

What can I possibly reply to that ? :wall:

Heh, seems like we're stuck here. I could reply to all your points again, but I doubt we'd get anywhere, ever.

New proposal: we scratch legal marriage alltogether, including any form of civil union and we make the sub-contracts (don't really know how else to put it) of a civil union seperate and available to all. State and federal benefits (if there are any) become linked to having (and raising) children instead of being married.

Religions can do with marriage whatever the hell they please.

Agree ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

New proposal: we scratch legal marriage alltogether, including any form of civil union and we make the sub-contracts (don't really know how else to put it) of a civil union seperate and available to all. State and federal benefits (if there are any) become linked to having (and raising) children instead of being married.

Religions can do with marriage whatever the hell they please.

Agree ?


Ive proposed that for years :laugh4:

Its basicly back to the old Roman method. But Im sure you call it progress :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

Ive proposed that for years :laugh4:

Its basicly back to the old Roman method. But Im sure you call it progress :laugh4:

Sometimes to go forward, you have to take a step back :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sometimes to go forward, you have to take a step back

Now your sounding like a conservative :laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

It should also be noted that civil unions don't get the same federal benefits as marriages and the other states aren't required to recognize them. So there is more difference than just the name.

It's funny that all the people who are saying marriage is a religious institution weren't complaining about it being legally called marriage before gay people wanted to get married.:thinking2:
If I never needed an example of what it means to be completely unwilling to compromise, here we have it.

Your argument against civil unions is that not all states recognize civil unions? I've got a news flash, they won't recognize marriages between 2 men or 2 women either.

As for the whole sanctity of marriage part, I actually have been complaining about it for some time. I knew people who would joke about 'starter marriages' and crap like that. I also know straight couples who weren't romantically involved that married strictly for the benefits. I found both offensive and frequently spoke to that.

Word to the wise, Sasaki.... a rigid, unwielding refusal to compromise at any level, even when you're getting what you want, makes you a zealot. Kind of hard to respect your ability to view both sides of an argument in light of that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh, civil unions are a good first step. If I'm a zealot then there are a lot of zealots ~:)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that those who suggest homosexuals "deserve" to get married like anyone else are totally missing the point.

Marriage has one function, to recognise the paternity of children born into a patriachal society and to support the mother of those children. The religious aspect comes in because traditionally the contract was witnessed and sanctified by the God/Gods of the society.

Homosexuality doesn't fit into that traditional framework.

Now, marriage has developed as our law codes have developed but until very recently it was still assumed that those who got married intended, at some point, to have sex and therefore children.

If homosexuals want the legal protection that the civil part of a union provides then fine, but they cannot have the religious ratification because none of the major religions recognise their right to a relationship.

So, all one has to ask is: If homosexuals are granted the right to a marriage can/will they use that right to try to force religions to recognise and ratify their marriages and thereby their sexuality?

If the answer is yes then homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. The End result would be a catastrothic scism between theists and atheists.

[AntiochusIII]

So, all one has to ask is: If heterosexuals are granted the right to a marriage can/will they use that right to try to force religions to recognise and ratify their marriages and thereby their sexuality?...

Can the State force, say, the Catholic Church to recognize a third, fourth, or eleventh marriage of a self-declared Catholic perfectly heterosexual person?

[doc_bean]

Now your sounding like a conservative :laugh4:

I'm a pragmatist ? :shrug: