Well then let me drink from that potential poisoned chalice

1)State recognition of an issue which the church claims primary dominion over is a prime motivator for its involvement.

2)It is important to remember that in general, a Church considers itself the prime moral guardian and guide of humanity onto a path of "enlightenment" in its diverse form.

A disestablismentarian opinion is an admirable ideal, but I feel it neglects the fact that religious adherents derive from their sheer numbers a right to representation of their views in society.

There is a and should be a de jure separation of church and state. On this point I agree with you. On the point of de facto relationships derived from the implicit moral influence, I am less certain. If the people elect Christian representatives who espouse Christian Values, then these are what should be enforced. That's democracy.

Naturally, the recognition of fundamental rights limits the effect of this, as a basic humanist assumption of personal freedoms should allow a degree of equality derived from natural justice.

3) As to the point of the state deciding right or wrong, I will reject a point I don't think you were making, in case it was your intent:

There is a duty of government to guarantee the social ethics of the populace in line with the opinions of the populace. This is fundamentally enshrined in personal rights, but extends also to moral guardianship of a certain degree.

Now, if you haven't left due to boredom, my opinion.

There is a fundamental question to be asked:

what is the purpose of marriage and related benefits?

If it is simply a way of encouraging natural reproduction, fine. But one must be even handed in such matters and deny benefits to couples who are incapable or choose not to have offspring.

Hardly a modern opinion. Perhaps more suited to the 1920's.

If, on the other hand, like me, you realise that marital status confers vital rights such as economic benefits and entitlements (inheritance, taxation, etc...) and, perhaps more importantly, rights to decisions such as resuscitation orders and rights of attorney over those who are non compus mentis.

When you realise that marriage is, in addition to its expression of love (which can be done separate to the state) an economic and social entity of great import, then I feel there is a strong case for permitting same sex marriage of equal status.

But that leads to the question of Polygamous or Polyandrous agreements. There I am not so sure.

In conclusion (phew!) I disagree with you when you say the church should not be involved, because it remains a substantial influence on the moral reckoning of a large proportion of people.

On the other hand, I would like to live in a world where who I choose to stick things in and whether or not they stick things in me can be a matter of pure personal choice, subject to obvious moral constraints (species, consent and age).

there... far too many words for little of merit.

I need only to once again point out the the church and state should indeed be separate, per consitutional amendment.

As well, how is gay marriage an 'ethics' call? The whole prejudice against their institution is based upon IGNORANCE and nothing more. Ethics is not whether two people want to join their incomes, which is the only aspect that the state sees. Who fucking cares what the two people have between their legs!

I personally find this whole debate completely SILLY. The only reason why this perpetuates is because of the desires of many people to RUN other people's lives. People are not content to work on themselves, no, they must fuck other people over.

DONT step on feet. LIVE your own life. LET others do the same.

Ok, I still disagree on the point of societal ethical standards,

but I echo the sentiment of mutual respect

My goodness.
Someone who actually sounds like they know what they're talking about. And can spell. And use paragraphs. And structure.

Are you sure you're on the right board manalone?

Enough arselicking.
Can I just jot down a few premises of your argument and the conclusion:

P1) There should be a de jure separation of church and state.
P2) The will of the people should be represented by those they elect. That is democracy.
P3) That includes their moral beliefs.
P4) There are a significant number of Christians in America.
P5) There can therefore be a de facto integration of church and state.
P6) The Bible would indicate that homosexual acts are sinful and marriage is between a man and a woman.
P7) There are fundamental human rights, formed on a humanist and natural justice basis.
P8) One of these human rights is equality (of some form or another).
P9) Marriage gives important economic and social benefits.
P10) Sexuality is not a moral constraint (unlike sex, consent and age).

C1 (from P1,7,8,9,10): Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Okay, a few thoughts:
P7 - Can you just assume that human rights arise from natural justice and not God?

P3 - Should the state reflect the moral beliefs of its citizens? Issues on which this does not occur in the UK: capital punishment and War on Iraq. One reason for this is that British MPs believe that they are elected to represent the welfare of their constituents and not their individual beliefs. In other words, we elect the wise among us to make decisions for all of us.

P8 - Equality will need to be defined further. For example: If equality means the government should show equal regard to the beliefs, liberty and happiness of all, then how does it weigh John's deep disgust at the thought of the state condoning homosexual acts with Dave's deep disgust at the thought of the state not condoning homosexual acts.

P10 - Aren't you just begging the question? The Bible says that three main types of sexual act are wrong: sodomy, bestiality and rape - and this moral trinity has been preserved in the Western Christian tradition for the last 2,000 years. As paedophilia is a specific case of rape (because informed consent can never be given) then its addition seems unproblematic. But what lets you remove sexuality/sodomy from the trinity of "obvious moral constraints"?

Is not equally possible from your premises to draw the following conclusion:

C2 (from P 2, 3, 4, 5, 6): Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.


Don't get me wrong, I don't support antidisestablishmentarianism. I just want to make sure that the right argument wins the day.

God? Who is God? I've never met God. I've never seen him on TV. I have no reason to believe in him or be governed by him.

And might I add that many Gay people DO NOT LIKE ANAL SEX. Being Gay doesn't mean that GETTING IT UP THE ASS is your only form of sexual expression. A relationship between two gay people DOES IN NO WAY INSINUATE that they have anal sex.

*I am getting very frustrated by the ignorance being displayed*

Wait, why am I arguing against a point that only supporters of the church would bring up? *sigh*

Halx

"A relationship between two gay people DOES IN NO WAY INSINUATE that they have anal sex."

Very true. Not only well endowed, but wise with it.

But one possible argument may go:

1) The Bible says that sodomy (sex between two men) is immoral.
2) In 2001 77% of Americans identified themselves as Christian.
3) The state should reflect the morality of its citizens.
4) The state should not condone what is immoral.
5) Marriages must be consumated by sex.

C(1 to 5): The state should not allow homosexual marriage.

Not quite, although my statements can admittedly be easily misunderstood. It's not that I don't like the gays, despite their flaws I still like most people in general, although I won't ignore certain aspects of them, most times it has no affect on my friendliness. I'm no biggot, I have my opinions but I am not so pretentious that I'd attempt to save anyone from what I believe is wrong, or persecute them for being the way they are.

I don't have a problem with them doing what they want as long as they aren't impacting anyone else, and with alternate lifestyle homes cranking out kids over a few decades they will. It's unnatural, and I don't believe people who live like this should raise a child without proper psychological studies assuring the child won't be damaged. Of course the problem there is getting a test subject. They're better left in a home until a proper home is found. (note: That doesn't include some of the good for nothing abusive parents I've heard stories about. I will yield to the idea that a child is better off with potentially having a social disorder then bruised to hell, emotionally scarred, or dead. Having seen the places they live, I'd say they should stay in the government home until a suitable family environment is found.)

I don't remember saying anything about breeding a super race, what I want for America is to have a healthy and strong populace. As I said earlier, I think economic and social ruin is a far greater threat to America then any power you could ever wield in your hand. My point is that with growing problems in these areas, 60% of our populace being overweight, and an unknown number of people with emotional problems, I find it disturbing people would be throwing gas on the fire.

I'd look silly wishing for a continual increase of obesity and mental instablity wouldn't I? These are two things we as a nation could fix, as an individual it's not hard to eat well and exercise so your blood sugar doesn't turn you into a sluggish lazy blob at work. Mental stablity is another story, we have got to start raising our kids better, and if you don't, pass a law that allows me to hit your unruly children. Speaking of rules, where have they gone? Authority figures? Punishment? It's a joke, they aren't going to be ready for jack with all this PC "everyone wins" musical chairs and "Hey, go knock that guys stuff over and scream all day while I threaten to do something, but I actually won't because I'm too lazy, and I bet you know it" crap I sat through at the mall.

I want my country to have a good stance towards a variety of types of health for what I think is a good reason, I want people to pull their own weight, so America can prosper, and I can prosper along with it. The thing about it is this is a competition, our society is based around competition. Free enterprise has made us a lot of money, and I don't think we would have gone to the moon if we weren't racing the Russians. Things are good, but they can be better, and better is always better.

The way I look at it, it's none of my business what they do in their bedrooms, nor do I want to know. It's strictly between them. I believe that they have a right to express their love however they feel is appropriate.

Some have touched on this, but the conflict arises when we say "marriage" but think something else. For some, marriage is a legal condition, a contract. For others, it's a sacrament. Same sex unions can only enter into the former. Nothing to argue there.

I've known a few openly gay men, and whether I like them as people or not has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. I think they should have the right to choose their life partner. I tried to reverse it; what if same sex was normal, and I was one of those "sick fucks" that wanted to have sex with women. Sorry, won't work. I'm wired for women. The thought of having sex with a man is so basically repulsive to me that I'm surprised women can do it.

Also, let's keep it civil. You won't make your points with sarcasm.

The people(majority) elect the politicians, who can in turn change the laws through amendments or bills. Also they (the people and/or politicians) elect judges who interpret the law, I don't think people would put someone in a postion to rule on laws that doesn't think the same way they do... Its just one big long connected chain...

Your Cheque is in the post.

Somehow I feel this is an underhanded way to introduce homophobia into the debate ;)

Succinctly and Accurately Put.

I think that is a question of semantics to some extent. Natural Justice is the secular humanist method of defining a moral underpinning to all human interaction.

It can be equally interpreted by the religious as the concept of God's Law, based on whatever god you intend to follow.

The concept of natural law as an independent entity is useful to me as I do not believe in the existance of God in any form. On that basis, I rely on a principle that assumes that human interaction should be founded on an ethical basis because I hold certain truths to be self-evident and certain rights to be inalienable.

It also permits the hazy concept of an unenumerated right. A principle of Natural Law that means that certain rights exist a priori of their discovery.

It doesn't make things easier, just fairer :)

Well, without any statistical evidence that I trust, I would prefer to set aside capital punishment as an example. I think we can make useful progress just on the Iraq issue.

It's a good example of an important question. Did the Blair Government perform its duties properly as a democratically elected government in that situation? I would contend that it may not have. The basis for any government decision must be the will of the people. That does not mean a referendum on every decision, but that the prime concern of government is not to force its will on the people, but accomodate the wishes of the majority, within the boundaries of Natural Law.

However, I feel that this is slightly to the side of the issue, which is centered on the question of the influence of socio-ethical lobby groups (ie the Church) on the supposedly economically focussed State.

My point was, simply, that the State is more than a simple economic entity. It therefore must exhibit the ethical perspective of its constituents.

The principle of equality in natural justice attempts to construct a basis whereby no individual rights override another's. In both cases, the State should merely provide the guarantee of free speech and free association.

In other words, the state must ensure that whatever opinion is held, it must be free from persecution. The right to "not be disgusted" is not, in my opinion a right compatible with the acknowledged right to freedom of speech. This leads to some unpleasant and extreme examples, but such is the nature of free speech.

Indeed. I suppose it comes down to consent. If I may draw your argument about paedophilia out, animals are similarly incapable of granting consent. It therefore becomes the following triad:

1) sodomy (consent required)
2) bestiality (no consent possible)
3) paedophilia (no consent possible)

On that basis I draw from the bible, based on other sexual practices which have become more acceptable since the writing of the document (ie oral sex and masturbation and most importantly adultery), that sexual morality has been reduced primarily to an issue of consent in modern times.

Not exactly. I would phrase C2 as "The states where it is found to be morally unacceptable should not permit or recognise such marriages".

The point to distinguish is that my opinion and what should happen remain separate. What is right and what should be done are also separate. Democracy must rule, with free debate on any side of an issue.

Right is a malleable entity, unfortunately. As a secular humanist, I can only derive principles of right and wrong through reason and opinion. Reason in the case of "natural justice" and opinion in the sense of the majority rules principle.

That does not mean I have to believe what the majority do (My reason outweighs the majority :) ) but it does mean that I think the only sane basis for government is that derived from democratic principles.

The right argument is the one that is amenable to your intellect and to your conscience.

Ably put. One might add that not all heterosexual love is expressed by vaginal penetration.

Well, I think perhaps because it is only through education that we reach enlightened points of view?

From the first post:It was the court that ruled it was against their rights to not allow marriage, now the politicians have to change the laws to reflect this. This ruling was based on their rights, rather than a politician’s ideology.

4th
#1 - So?
#5 - moot because once again... anal sex is not a gay person's only option.

As for 2, 3, and 4...
Morality, in your views, is becoming about how you think your neighbor should live his or her life. To that I say, "back off." Communities are diverse. Here where *I* live, America is home of the free. With that, we should be FREE to be whoever we want to be as long as we are hot harming anyone. Gay marriages harm no one.

So let's be a little crazy and hypothetical here: Perhaps there is a community of racist rednecks somewhere in the country... the rednecks would like the freedom to harass, beat and kill all gays, blacks, jews and gypsies they see. Because the rednecks make the majority of that region, do you grant them their request? OF COURSE NOT. You make decisions that are practical and rational. Yeah, that example is a little out there, but let me explain.

Who gives a shit about petty concerns? Homophobia is what we're up against. It develops from lack of education. It develops from hypocritical religious views. We are living in the 21st century where most of the world has abandoned religion in favor of more rational, realistic thinking.

Recognize marriages, increase awareness, preach tolerance, and watch as this debate fizzles into obscurity.

How sad I am to see what I thought was going to be a good discussion turn to name calling and extreme views.

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky

My goodness.
Someone who actually sounds like they know what they're talking about. And can spell. And use paragraphs. And structure.

Are you sure you're on the right board manalone?


Please don't make it sound as if there are only a few people speaking here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if it differs from your own.....so be it. Don't try to insult the intelligence of the rest of the people who have posted a part of themselves to this thread. I take exception to that.....everyone is entitled to their say without being looked down upon.

the men that wrote the constitution were genius'.

yes, politicians can alter the law, but the founders didnt want them to be able to take away basic rights (including the natural rights by locke).

that's why they made ammendments to be such a dragged out process. the didnt want a sudden change in majority opinion to do anything drastic. you know how hard it is to get an ammendment right?


and as for judges, what matters here are what federal judges think. and they dont get elected. i dont think any federal judges get elected and most have life terms, so no worry's regarding re-election.

the supreme court does care to a certain degree about majority opinion, but they have went the other way lots of time and i sure hope they do it here.


EDIT: lemme add more.

the majority in this case are the religious groups (mainly christians). it doesnt matter what christians think, it doesnt matter what god thinks. bill of rights was designed for a situation just like this (again, how smart the founders were...).

overwhelming religious majority wants to set a moral standard for the entire population - big no no.

Excellently stated.Very nice.

call me a close minded triditional man if u wish
but gay is wrong
gay is against the law of nature
I cant believe that the government allows its practice

It's kinda funny how although here in America your considered free, if your "wierd" your not liked and your free choice is usualy denied.

I have a couple friends that are gay and I don't see much wrong with it. In my opinion it's just a chemical imbalance or something and if not ahh well none of my business they can live how they want it really isn't hurting me any so I don't see the big deal with it all. It seems like some people always have to be telling someone how to do something or whats wrong or right otherwise everyone including them would be perfect and they would go insaine not having something to bitch about.

You, my friend, need to learn more about nature.

[Devil's Advocate]

Let's see how genius you believe the founding fathers to be now Dude ;)....

<hr>

I'm getting tired of seeing people reference the "genius" of the founding fathers in claiming dthat religion has no part effecting our government. Believe in freedom FROM religion all you want, but start a new movement for a new amendment then, because the current one assures freedom OF religion. One need only look to the person who WROTE IT to see that.

I'm all for working to get a new amendment in there that does what people wish to believe the first amendment does. That's the right of US citizens. But to intentionally misconstrue the intentions of the founding fathers - and then label them geniuses for it! Call them geniuses for what they intended, not what you wish they intended. And if you feel they left something out - such as the freedom FROM religion - work to get it put in. Don't accept people in goverment who are willing to ignore the intentions of the founding fathers and twist the meanings of their words in order to create a situation to their liking because it's easier than going about it the right way.

[/Devil's Advocate]

Since we bring up the Founding Fathers here are a few quotes.

Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Ben Franklin


Not a founding father but a great president

Quote:

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) The 16th President of the United States (1861-1865) My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not that we be not judged. It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.

James Madison

Quote:

Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State. The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

Stop me before I quote again.

The basic deal is that we will slowly but surely have to start recognizing same sex marriages as people move from countries where they are legal to the United States.
When one state makes it legal then all the others will have to eventually follow despite the bigotry.

Say, Abraham Lincoln was a republican wasn't he? Does this mean you're going to start fighting for the side of good?

Let's not start getting overly sarcastic here please.

Besides, don't forget that the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln's day was actually quite liberal for the climate in which it was in.

Red,

Yes, those are some interesting pieces as well. I read each to be speaking of Christian denominations persecuting other Christian denominations - a primary reason people settled onto America.

Most applicable to that interpretation is the quote you provide which, at face value, seems most damning.

" The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

I see no reason to see this as a condemnation of religion itself but merely a condemnation of the religious persecution the first amendemnt was created to prevent - a state-sponsored religion.

Either way, you have one of 2 things - either you have a group of founding fathers who are appalled by Christians persecuting other Christians but, for the most part (note that, IIRC, Franklin and Jefferson were among the few founding fathers who were not Christian of some sort) believe in the general good of Christian teachings, or you have a group of founding fathers who are no less two-faced as the politicians today.

Either way, they are undeserving of being called geniuses in regard to their stance on religion and its relation to the state in the way people are doing it. Either they disagree with you or we have no idea WHAT they thought on the subject because of their contrary statements.

Personally, I find the former more likely, especially when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. First, there is no question as to the motives of Fisher Ames, and there is not a more reliable source to look to when trying to decipher the first amendment. And second, when interpreting the constitution, I find it much more erasonable to look to things they said while they were drafting it than otherwise (see Benjamin Franklin's call for prayer at the Constitutional Convention).


We digress however, I simply wanted to point out that the founding fathers and the first amendment aren't exactly things to fall back on in this debate.

You are right about the future of same sex marriages however, and I think that's exactly how it ought to be. It is, in my opinion, the government's duty to reflect the social mores of its people, and when those mores change, the laws ought to as well.

*I would just like to make it clear that I am acting as devil's advocate here, because the anti-gay-marriage arguments that are being posted seem to revolve around the blunt claim "its against nature" and the fact that anuses are not designed to receive penises. I find this particularly weak (especially given the fact that nature seems to have created the male body such that anal sex is peleasurable to it, whereas women - due to the position of the prostate I think - do not find it as pleasurable) and am trying to come up with some stronger arguments, because I think everyone has the right to a good defence*

That being said,

I was stupid.
I missed the fourth big biblical ban on sex: Incest.
Incestuous marriage is still illegal today.
So we have....

1) sodomy (consentual)
2) incest (consentual)
3) rape (non-consentual)
4) bestiality (non-consentual)
5) paedophilia (non-consentual)


So manalone and all those who are in favour of homosexual marriage. You say that the new moral guidelines about sex and marriage are draw along the lines of consent, so...
Should a brother and sister who love each other (and have no plans to have natural children - just as two men have no plans to have natural children) be allowed to marry?
Should a mother and son (who is smart, of legal age and in romantic love) be allowed to marry?

If they should.... well all credit to you for sticking to your libertarian guns. I just hope you are genuinely comfortable with your conclusions and not just saying 'yes' because you feel you have to.
If they should not... why does the consent and freedom argument only apply to homosexuals and not members of the same family?

4th,

heh. :)


One thing I don't understand is why it's so hard to accept that different people have different views of nature though.

The natural state of man is something philosophers have debated for centuries and will continue to debate for centuries to come, and despite all attempts to look at it from a scientific perspective, when people are speaking of "nature" in terms of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, I'm pretty sure they mean something more metaphysical.

So, with it being impossible to determine what the natural state of man is to anywhere near the level of certainty that one can state that, in non-vector mathematics, 2+2=4, what makes the argument that it is against nature weak?

Since it's impossible to know the metaphysical nature of man beyond conjectures and faith, what makes the argument of a person who puts faith in the Bible and says that homosexuality is against the metaphysical nature of man any more or less weak than the argument of someone who places no faith in anything but man itself? Neither is any more capable of determining what the "natural" metaphysical state is than the other.

Women do not have prostate glands, men do; ergo male/male anal sex is natural, male/female is not :)

(I'm just being flippant)

Very good point. Hmm... It's a bit of a special case, since there is a potential suggestion of undue influence before consent can be given (particularly in the parent/child scenario).

Taking aside the very strong genetic reasons for not permitting such unions to produce children, it's hard to reject such things.

I have to say I can't think of a reason why not, so I will say yes to permitting such unions.

However, there is a requirement that no issue come of such marriages.

I think I should point out once again that reason is not the basis simplicitor for my opinions. I also take into account the thoughts of the majority. (what a buy out! - I hear you say)

In this case, I have no personal opinion on the matter, and so I will permit societal standards to form my thoughts and oppose legal recognition of that form of union.

But it is important to note that we have strayed significantly from the point. The question is legal recognition of relationships (marriages) of homosexuals. This practice is (in Europe for the most part anyway) not itself illegal. Incest, Paedophilia and Bestiality are illegal in of themselves.

So, the problem becomes, *if* incest were legal, should we permit marriages of incestuous couples? I guess so, but that requires many intermediate steps.

Have I dodged the question? I'm not sure.

Hmm... what about this?

Incestuous relationships are not valid because they are not between independent individuals. The principle of marriage is intended to link two people not otherwise intertwined. To estabilsh a bond of family between them.

This is not possible where such a bond already exists.

Does that hold up?

I enter this with some trepidation, but I believe incestuous relationships are not valid because they pose the real danger of offspring with genetic flaws/defects. I do not believe that homosexual relationship present the same dangers.

Regards....

Sorry, but nope.

Remember that marriage is not just intended to create a family bond (and certainly not just any old family bond - we wouldn't say to a gay couple, "Can't marry? Never mind, why don't you try and adopt one another?"). You are forgetting your own words (which I labelled Premise 9):

EDIT:> And as for "Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not" that is a cop out. Because (i) the laws on this vary between regions and besides, we are trying to go beyond laws here so we can decide what should be and not what is, (ii) the laws on a borther and sister not having sex seems to stem from the exact same (biblical/conservative?) tradition that has made homosexual sex illegal for so long - to have archaic laws as both the target of your argument and its support seems a little problematic.

Good try though manalone :p

And smarm, reread my post. I tried to cut you off at the pass on this one. They are a smart couple and have decided not to have natural children (they would adopt like a homosexual couple). If you want to be even more certain. They are smart, don't want to conceive and have had an operation to ensure that there are no 'accidents' - they love each other and want to have happy healthy babies, which means adopting.

yes, they might all have been belivers in supernatural, but they didnt put any of that into the constitution. they knew how messed up it was going to get if they mixed religion and govt. they kept them as seperate entities.

even though the constitution doesnt explicitly state the seperation of church and state, a long list of supreme court cases have. government should not make policy based on what the church deems as acceptable

That long list of Supreme Court cases doesn't start until about 1960 - before then, the Supreme Court has decisions which actually came to nearly opposite conclusions of what you espouse.

In 1890, the Supreme Court stated in a ruling:

1892, the famous (infamous?) Holy Trinity v. US:

1902, again regarding polygamy:

It wasn't until the late 20th century that the "wall" seperating church and state extended beyond being one way, protecting the state from the church, as well as the church from the state.


As for not putting it into the constitution, do you mean to suggest that Fisher Ames wrote the first amendment with the intention of keeping religion from having any influence on government and then would defy his very work by suggesting as a congressman that the Bible be taught in schools? Unless he was bipolar I fail to see how that's likely.

the US government is supposed to be secular, meaning no affiliation w/ any religion.

if the government is going to make policy that exclusively is meant to please a certain religious group, that secularity is gone.

Forgive me if I don't accept that as the end of that particular debate.
I do not believe that not wanting yourself to be photographed is on a par with wanting to burn yourself alive or make human sacrifices. It is more on a par with say, animal sacrifices - an issue which America (I didn't list in the list of countries I gave last time, but I've done some reading and it should join them) recognises the need to give believers an exception to respect their practices.

EDIT:> Actually, I've given the wife burning thing some thought and maybe I would include that in the list of things governments should not interfere with. After all, the government cannot force a Jehovah's Witness to accept a blood transfusion to save their life, so I can see a case for saying that the government shouldn't prevent a person committing suicide if that is what their religion dictates. The government is quite happy to let us give our lives for our country, why shouldn't it let us give our lives for our God?

****

I am still open for taking answers to my incest question.

The point, dude, is that the significant majority of our founding fathers (all but a couple) did not agree with you in that point.

Take a look at George Washington, just as an example,

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge THE Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor."


I have no problem with people believing that what you say ought to be the case at all, the only point is that that is not what the founding fathers thought, and, were current laws interpreted as the way those who drafted them intended them to be interpreted, there is nothing in law that says such a thing.

It's not a matter of saying that your opinion that government should be completely sterile of religion is necessarily wrong, it's just a simple matter of fact that for it to truly be legally the case (rather than having bastardizations of laws as we have currently), something along the lines of a new constitutional amendment must be written.

No no. Wait a moment. I have obviously not made myself clear.

Try thinking of it as Marriage as a institution which confers ties on two people who do not otherwise have those entitlements. In that specific definition, familial marriages are invalid because the basic requirement of two people being independent from one another is not fulfilled.

You see, its not a valid example if you exclude the genetic issue.
(you cheater :P)

It's the source of the taboo, you see. Ignore the Bible, which is arguably irrelevent (the Romans also had laws on incest. Much of Western Legal and Social morays are from this civilisation also).

But in any case, I disagree. The point is that we are recognising the legitimacy of a legal relationship, or we are recognising the legitimacy of an illegal union.

You have to separate the issues, otherwise the argument is too muddled to make any progress.

Should a state acknowledge marriage of an illegal union (including homosexual ones where that is illegal)? Obviously not.

But on the other hand, if you wish to debate the morality of homosexuality or (insert sexual practice of choice) then that is a separate issue, and furthermore, should a state recognise the union of legitimate relationships? Well, I think so.

Good point about the state recognising an illegal union in the case of incest.

But just because a relationship is legal does not mean that the state must accept its conversion into a marriage relationship.
Take for example, the love of two 15 year olds - legal, but not marriageable.'

I would contend (in devil's advocate role) that the reason that the state is allowed (if it really is) to make incest illegal is that it undermines the traditional family unit [not because of genetic problems, because the state cannot prevent adults with inheritable genetic diseases from procreating or marrying].
In the case of incest the threat to the traditional, married family unit is a direct one, so the relationship itself must be made illegal. In the case of homosexuality the threat to the traditional, married family unit comes when they request to marry. Therefore the state can intervene at that point to make gay marriage illegal.

So my questions would be:
Q1. Is the state allowed to rule activities illegal that undermine the traditional, married family unit as it understands it?
Q2. If yes, then could homosexuality not be considered a threat to the unique importance of the traditional, married family unit?
Q3. If no, then on what basis is the state allowed to rule incest illegal?


*devil's advocate*

EDIT:> Actually, I don't think much of Q2. It seems pretty obvious to me that allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't undermine the institution of marriage, in fact it may strengthen it by allowing it bind more loving couples and gain importance through prevalence. But if anyone thinks that homosexual marriage would undermine the tradional, married family unit then please feel free to join in on this one.

Fair enough. I agree that the logical reversal of my point is only partially correct.

Very well put. I think that makes sense.

Hmm... yes. On the basis that the majority wills it, and within the constraints of fundamental rights. But it's not a restricted field. The state should act to control acts of which are repugnant to the people, within the constraints of natural law.

For the same reason murder, theft, etc... are all regulated by the state.

Potentially, but is it really? Does forcing people to have illicit homosexual affairs which result in massive scandal and the breakup of marriages result in a positive effect?

In any case. I contend that this point relates to the legality of homosexuality. not the recognition of marriage.

If, on the other hand, we are asking if homosexual marriage is a threat to the position of heterosexual marriage; on the basis of a legal homosexual practice, I see no argument for it.

/me leaves that for someone else.

I know it seems sophistry, but I still want to try and separate marriage rights and the legality of the practice itself.

Rhetorical Aside: Why is it that you can never talk about homosexual rights without the whole thing turning to animals and kids?

EDIT: "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." - Winston Churchill.

it doesnt matter if the majority wills it or not.

i've said this before, the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect minority views/rights from sudden majority's.

the right to marry whoever you want (recognized by state) is a basic right in my mind, and does not require majority will.

I disagree. And in any case, you should note that this has already been covered. I adopted the humanist principle of Natural Law and fundamental rights as a more general (and international) expression of the statement of rights that guards each individual.

But you have to define marry and, if you see a fundamental right to marry, does that include animals? family? children?

if not, why not?

~feels like 4th all of a sudden~

And, incidentally, on the basis that the constitution is a living and alterable document, the majority matters a very great deal.

Instances of major alteration in the US:
1) Universal Sufferage

2) Slavery

and more.

I strongly disagree with this. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect everyone, regardless of being in the minority or majority. My interpretation of it is that everyone is equal and no one is protected more than anyone else, regardless of being in the minority or majority. Equal.

Do people care if their neighour comes home ever day and get's shitfaced in the privacy of his or her home? Nope, as long as it doesn't directly affect them.

Do people care if in the neighourhood one over,everyone rips up their lawns and grows potatoes? Nope,as long as it's not in their neighourhood.

Do people care when they see a high speed LA police chase end in a crash? Nope,as long as they aren't involved.

So why do people care so much about other people's lifestyles? Because some archaic book called the bible says it's wrong. Really now,isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. Two consenting gay people want to live their lives together peacefully and the bible calls it a sin,yet thousands of priests fuck little boys up the ass and from the Vatican on down it is covered up and everyone turns a blind eye.What hypocrisy in the name of God.

If you are distressed and are in a life and death predicament in which CPR can save your life,are you going to refuse help because the only person that can save you is gay? If you do,you deserve to die.

Are you going to turn down a job that will double your salary because your boss is gay? Hmmm,..now that would be putting your money where your mouth is.

Will you disown your father,mother,brother,sister,son or daughter if they come to you and tell you they are gay? Will their entire being just change in an instant? Will you be riddled with guilt since you have failed to make them understand your singular belief?

Life is for living,not judging.

I accept and respect everyones opinion on this board,but for the exception of a few,I am disappointed.

Come on team, lets keep those pencils sharp.

I think Gallagher said it best. In so many words, he said that if you want to be progressive, you can't listen to what people say.

Now that we're in the 21st century, we cant heed the petty fears of people who got their education before this boom in sexuality. We have to progress and move on to the next issue.

Sadly it is often the case that the "next issue" (e.g. deliquent kids with irresponsible parents) is the result of the boom in sexuality and freedom of which you speak.

More importantly, the thing is that every social measure is not to be railed against. We need to regulate our behaviour.

To paraphrase 4th, yesterday's "petty fear" may be tomorrow's grand crisis.

Asbestos or tobacco anyone?

look @ those 2 movements.

a minority group had to start a movement for the change in the status quo. this is the same situtation here, we're talking about equal rights for same sex-marriages and this is started by a minority group (mainly gays and liberals n libertarians etc...)

Guys, I thought we were a civilized society. Obviously I have a lot more faith in humanity than you guys.

What the heck kind of crisis could come out of gay marriages that isn't allready apparent in today's society?

They can get married for all I care. Go for it, let the state tax them like the rest of us. I don't like the concept of homosexuality, but they are going to be gay whether I like it or not. The one thing I don't want to happen is for them to adopt and raise children, that's the extent of my objection basically.

even if a kid wants to be raised by same-sex parents?

Are you going to listen to what a kid wants? You're supposed to be raising them, not the other way around, they aren't capable of doing what's best for themselves.

well, the other alternative is going to be nobody raising them, just switchin foster homes every 3 months.

i for one would GLADLY take same-sex parents!

Not quite, they can live with nuns, or some other government funded facility. Plenty of order in those places, they get shelter, food, and discipline in a fairly decent environment.

Perhaps, or you could interpret the words "Civilsed Society" to include social and ethical rules and regulations.

That's my contention.

Strictly speaking that is untrue. Women are a majority.

In either case, the point is that the majority had to agree to alter the document. They were offered the basic natural protections,
and the majority voted for change.

I'm going to add that it's a statistical fact: Children raised by gay parents have the same chances of ending up gay as those raised by straight parents.

Now, who doesn't believe that all men are created equal? The hypocracy of this whole debate is astounding. We are all equal and should be given equal rights.

Shit, gays should love me by now.

i agree w/ halx. i dont think you can be gay if you're raised by gay parents.


i dont think i'm straight just cuz my parents are straight.


as for "Not quite, they can live with nuns, or some other government funded facility. Plenty of order in those places, they get shelter, food, and discipline in a fairly decent environment."

come on dude, not many kids wanna live w/ nuns. that must be the most boringest life ever.

just to compare, nuns dont have sex. does that mean the kids are going to be virgins for the rest of their lives?

and as for govt funded places, you mean a jail?

At this point, I stopped reaing this post.

Why?

Cos his is not only USA forum or issue!

Also the christians don't have a monopoly on either of those. After accepting these two facts, discussion might become more fruitfull.

Agreed to both... I posted based on my frame of reference, US and majority christian area. I realize that this is not just a christian or US issue, I, unfortunately, just have more information about those particular areas. Given that, I don't think the opinons in my post would change, but I should probably have worded it differently.

Well said.

Brothers and Sisters of the rest of the world! Unite and get married :)

Okay, well firstly I don't think we should accept that if we allow things to continue as they are in "today's society" that we will be doing a good job of government. There are lots of things that are "apparent in today's society" - teenage pregnancy, gun crime, asbentee parents etc. - that I think we should be trying to 'roll back'.

But that is an aside. The big question you asked was: what harm could come of homosexual marriages?
Now please remember two things before I continue this post: Firstly, this is not an 'attack' on homosexuals - in fact my normal position would be to defend homosexual marriage, but I thought I should try and see things from the other side in this thread. Secondly, I am trying to foresee a possible future. That means you can easily criticise what I say as just guesswork or mad fancy. Imagine trying to stand up during the Sixties and tell people what some of the less desirable results of the sexual revolution would be. You'd be shouted down. I hope that I will not be shouted down here. But thoughtful comments are of course welcome.

So, the future....

Marriage is an institution. An institution that plays a vital role in society. It is a bond that holds parents and families together, which as we have seen in other threads is the only place that children can really be educated with moral values and the skills of life.

However marriage is an institution in crisis. The divorce rate is rising and fewer people feel the need to formalise their relationships with it. The bond of marriage is increasingly seen as a straightjacket that prevents us from following our true desires and living free and uninhibited lives.

But there is still hope for marriage. It has the support of the church (and in other countries their respective religions) and it is still seen as something special, both by the state, by employers and by many (if not most) individuals.

Wat makes a thing special? Well two important factors are exclusivity and tradition. Univeristies are considered special because not everyone can go there (you have to meet a certain academic standard) and it has a tradition (e.g. Oxford or Harvard). Also there is a special expectation upon university students - they will generate the ideas and businesses of the future.

So why is marriage special? Well, because it is part of a tradition, supported by the church, that binds together the nuclear family and recgonises it as something special: it is the basic unit of society and raises the next generation. Furthermore, marriage is an exclusive club - you cannot join until you are 18 (without parents consent), you cannot join without making special commitments and sacrifices, you cannot join with someone of your own family or with more than one person and you cannot join unless it is with someone of the opposite sex. Marriage is entwined with the nuclear family and that is why it is respected - it gives you a new and imprtant role in the future of society. With that come benefits (from state and employer) and also responsibilities (towards each other and towards your children). The law also incorporates an emphasis upon the different roles taken by men and women (e.g. that women give birth and often take more responsibility for child rearing - this may seem sexist, but it is how the law operates and is intended to reflect the reality of most families).

So what could some possible impacts of allowing same-sex marriage be?
1) Marriage currently still has the public's support and the majority in the US do not want to legalise same-sex marriage. Ignoring this fact and legalising same-sex marriage will create even more dissillusionment with the institution and speed its decline.

2) Opening up marriage to same-sex couple will send a message that marriage is not entwined with the nuclear family and that it is seen as just a legal mechanism for conferring certain rights and benefits upon long-standing couples. This devalues marriage and undermines it as a pillar that supprts the nuclear family.

3) Opening up marriage to same-sex couples will be the death knell of its exclusivity. The allowance of same-sex marriage will require a rewriting of the rights, benefits and duties of married couples (because marriage laws were written with male-female unions in mind and many laws will no longer be appropriate), which will almost inevitably be a "dumbing down". There will be less that is special and 'set-apart' about marriage and its currency and worth will be devalued.

4) The institution of marriage currently has the total support of the church. This support is very important, especially in a religious country like the US. Allowing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the support that the church can, and would want to, give it. It will drive a wedge between the church and the state on the issue of marriage. For those wanting to see a gulf between church and state this will be a good thing, but for the institution of marriage it would be terrible. We could face a future where the church, rather than stoop to accomodate this new civil marriage system, tries to reclaim marriage by having exlcusively religious marriages for its members. Then following these religious marriages the couple could go and make it a civil union as well, if they wanted to. What would be happening is that marriage would become too meaningless/untraditional for the church and too traditional/out-of-date/negatively-associated for everyone else. The result: civil marriage suits no one and dies a death, replaced by highly religious ceremonies at one extreme and loose ceremonial unions (or no unions at all) at the other.

In summary: Same-sex marriages would be a big step along the road to a future in which... Marriage has little weight, little meaning and little value. The benefits, rights and duties that are associated with it are whitled down until there si nothing left but a skeleton, where once there was a healthy body. The church has retracted its support of civil marriage in favour of a reclaimed religious marriage for its congregation. In the end marriage as a state institution and support for the general nuclear family withers away, to be replaced by purely-religious marriages at one end of the spectrum and a diversity of ceremonies and unions at the other. Marriage is dead, the population is divided and children suffer.

The same could be said now with heterosexual marriages.Are people really interest in the sanctity of marriage or are they only interested in their 'special day', the hoopla and 150 chicken dinners.If not the case,why do so many marriages end in divorce or seperation? Obviously, "till death do us part" means very little or nothing anymore and if that is irrelevant,isn't the church also since that is one of it's dictums?

As far as the religious traditions go,I think most people use that excuse as a crutch. I enjoy seeing people getting married in a church who already live together (living in sin),use birth control(that's a no-no),and are going to get right shitfaced at the reception( the bible not mention something about debauchery?).Offer someone to get married in a church or on a ocean cruiseliner in the Carribean all expenses paid,and which option do you think they will take? I think in any marriage,gay(if allowed) or straight, the religious aspect is secondary at best in regards to why those people choose to spend their lives together in the first place.

Yeah, marriage is an institution. Have you been reading functionalist social theory perhaps? They don't ONLY say that marriage is an institution, but also that other institutions can take it's place and do the same things in society if needed and that marriage has many forms. We claim that western people are monogamous what comes to marriage, but are we? There's really big percentage of couples of which one or both are rewed. Serial monogamy can be argued to be a kind of polygamy. And while co-habiting hasn't the same legal privileges, it is also an institution in the West by now. People know what that phrase means automatically and they know how the behaviour pattern of things work, just the same as when someone says "marriage", it gives us a rough idea of what these people are doing and what their life is like compared to say singles or widows.


As stated above, there are many sorts of institutions and institutions, same as the state and communities evolve. If marriage as institution is in decline, that can tell us it might be not needed anymore. The post-modern or post-technlogical society has pluralistic values and that most people accept. We might have to let go of the idea that marriage means the same for everybody.

In the 1960, most of the brits and us citizens whined it's somehow touching into their "privacy and civil rights" if they are made to wear seat belts.. ATM in Finland, the state doesn't want to give groceries rights to sell wines when majority of the population wants it and the reason is that alcohol related diseases and death rates would go up. Common people are not always the best judges to choose what is best for the WHOLE of society. They think about themselves, their own family and their friends.

Quote:

2) Opening up marriage to same-sex couple will send a message that marriage is not entwined with the nuclear family and that it is seen as just a legal mechanism for conferring certain rights and benefits upon long-standing couples. This devalues marriage and undermines it as a pillar that supprts the nuclear family.

I don't know man-man-children families, but I know many lesbian families and they live just like nuclear families and they are by no way threat to those values. They BECOME threat to those values if they are somehow not allowed to live as a family and be like everybody else; Then they have to live as something else and become rebels.

Quote:

3) Opening up marriage to same-sex couples will be the death knell of its exclusivity. The allowance of same-sex marriage will require a rewriting of the rights, benefits and duties of married couples (because marriage laws were written with male-female unions in mind and many laws will no longer be appropriate), which will almost inevitably be a "dumbing down". There will be less that is special and 'set-apart' about marriage and its currency and worth will be devalued.

The social world has to be redefined all the time. Usually the eritten code is not changed, but the practice changes. Compare the family life 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 yaers ago.. It's not static, family and marriage as institutions are all the time redefined. You can't beat your kids or wife nowadays. You can't sleep with your household servants freely - or who even has those, and if someone has, who counts them to belong to your family?? It's not automatically devalued. It's revalued.

Quote:

4) The institution of marriage currently has the total support of the church.

Actually, it never has. It's still taboo to marry cross-racially in some places and societies. It's still and probably will always be forbidden to marry your close realtives. These all are sovial norms and the church or the people belonging to it uphold it. Marriage of Suitable People [tm] have total support.

Quote:

This support is very important, especially in a religious country like the US. Allowing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the support that the church can, and would want to, give it. It will drive a wedge between the church and the state on the issue of marriage. --- .

Even if US is more religious than most European or some Oceanian & Asian nations, you still uphold the idea that church & state are separated, right?

Quote:

Marriage is dead, the population is divided and children suffer.

Marriage will most likely never totally die. It will just change, as it has, through history and cultures. It's a popular overreaction to scream "History/religion/art/politics/marriage/substitute-some-other-valuable-institution-in-here is dead!" when times are changing and in the days when Bible was written, some people thought ways are already so currupt and things so bad that God mus be putting and end to this World.

Just a really incoherent side note:

I have no idea what it feels like for a man, but it can be extremely pleasurable for a woman too. So.. :)

Btw, someone just cried in another web forum how "adoption is so unnatural!" LOL. That person probably hasn't heard the stories of animals adopting even cubs of other species. :) Somehow everybody claim to be expert on nature & what is natural.

The thinking goes that men have a physical feature which, when stimulated, generates pleasure (ie a prostate gland).

The Female Rectal tract is devoid of such a feature.

As to who has more pleasure? Well, that's one of thos impossible questions, like who has better orgasm or some such. It varies so widely between individuals that you can make no sex-wide generalisation.

[/QUOTE]
Btw, someone just cried in another web forum how "adoption is so unnatural!" LOL. That person probably hasn't heard the stories of animals adopting even cubs of other species. :) Somehow everybody claim to be expert on nature & what is natural.[/QUOTE]

There's no point discussing natural with regard to humans. Marriage is not natural our social order is not natural... hell some of our best looking people ain't natural :) (silicone etc)

Incidentally, is a dog adopting a kitten natural? Can we really look to animals for examples of "proper" behaviour?

To you religous zelots... In the words of the 'J' word himself.... Judge not lest ye be Judged...

To the politicians who feel the need to stick their nose into the bedroom of two consenting adults.... Get the fuck out and do something meaningful like feed the hungry, house the homeless, stop the child molesters, stop spousal abuse, stop the senseless killing in our streets, make a real difference in the educational system in this country, spend as much money making peace as war... and when you've done all of that... come back and if you ask really nicely... I'll let you into my bedroom to watch...

Well Willowsr you certainly know how to make an entrance.

- We are not discussing controlling what occurs in the bedroom, we are discussing what happens at the marriage registry.

- Politicians get involved in these issues because they believe that marriage and the family is an issue that relates to "child molesters", "spousal abuse" and "eduction". Crazy huh!

- In the words of the 'J' man himself....

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
- (NIV, Mathew 19:4-6)

What two consenting people do with their crotches or whom they marry, is really none of my business.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Well Willowsr you certainly know how to make an entrance.
- We are not discussing controlling what occurs in the bedroom, we are discussing what happens at the marriage registry.
- Politicians get involved in these issues because they believe that marriage and the family is an issue that relates to "child molesters", "spousal abuse" and "eduction". Crazy huh!

4thTimeLucky...
Unfortunately... Politicians are unable to make a distinction and pass laws regarding sodomy and 'same sex' rights... it's not about sex as you said... it's about respecting one persons lifetime commitment to another and changing the legal system to address todays societal needs... it has NOTHING to do with sex, child molestation, or whatever...
btw... once... in my "Crusader" days, I associated persons in same sex relationships with child molesters... I got over that and apologized for being that closed minded and hateful and ignorant.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky - In the words of the 'J' man himself....
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - (NIV, Mathew 19:4-6)

4thTimeLucky...
guess we could make this a bible verse 'shootout'... flipping to the book of Ruth *grin*...

But.... I'm not going to do that... I had my "Crusader" days ... I was "holier than thou" to a very dear friend... I 'rebuked' her in the name of God and all that is holy... then... after two years of hatefullness to her... I spent a 'mens prayer weekend' at church... ya' know what came to me in prayer?
I was the one who was judged... I was wrong... and I was compelled to ask forgiveness of the one I rebuked.

I eventually got the balls to do so... and do you know what she did? She asked if she could give Me a hug... I was humbled as I'd never been humbled before... I learned about love...

Maybe we could spread a little more of that around...

i think we should start a poll about this and see where the tfp members are standing on this.

no discussion, just a poll (btw, can you add a poll to this now?)

Dude - Good idea on the poll thing.

Willowsr
This may surprise you.... but I am not a christian.... or any religion. I just thought that if you were the sort of person that quotes the Bible you might be up for hearing more.

As for the other stuff.... I am not equating homosexuals with child molesters. I am making the point that marriage and family are related to "child molestation" (most of which is conducted by a family member), "spousal abuse" (all of which is conducted by a family member!) and "education" (the real school is the home). If we can ensure that the institution of marriage is strong then we may help the family unit to be strong and then we will be making a positive contribution to those issues you listed.

I'm glad you got the hug.

*steps back into this thread for a moment*

4thTimeLucky...

to a point i agree with you... if we can ensure that the institution of marriage is strong... perhaps we can help to heal each other and "support the family" as you stated... that included ALL FAMILIES... even homosexual ones...

outlawing their marriage and committment only weakens the support... if anyone thinks that by keeping it illegal we will "stop the ill that is homosexuality"... they are fooling themselves...

let's start loving and supporting one another instead of pointing our finger and judging.

I was at a Father's day celebration for a gay couple and their adopted 5 year old. They had been taking care of this young boy since he was 1.5. They are a very loving and caring couple and I would wish for them to be able to raise him in the environment that they currently have, which is with the Papa and the Daddy. Fortunately for them they work at companies that have same sex benefits for domestic partners.

I would like to see however if this is extended to a homosexual couple that it be extended to a heterosexual couple if they follow the same guidelines of how they define the criteria for the domestic partner.

I think that the anti-SSM camp can make their case without judging or pointing fingers.
I know a lot of people were saying homosexuality is "disgusting" and "unnatural" - which is very judgemental - but that's why I decided to try and make a case that was based on reason and not disgust.

Different institutions have different traditions and different functions. We can often stretch the role of institutions to be more inclusive or fulfill more functions. Sometimes this stretching is a good thing and makes the world a better place, but sometimes the stretching weakens the institution and causes it to tear apart. The anti-SSM camp is simply saying that the institution and tradition of marriage is a very strictly delineated one. Furthermore at this time it needs our support, and they contend that the institution of marriage - if I can use the analogy of company - is better supported by concentrating on its core competencies than diversifying into new markets.

Just a piece of information, for what it is worth:

At the company I work for, the benefits for same sex couples are the same as for married hetero couples. If you "live with," but are not married to, your hetero significant other in the same conditions that the same sex couple live in, you do not get the same benefits, however. The reason for this is that there is no method for the same-sex couple to have a legally binding commitment, so the company accepts their word instead. I heard the VP of HR state that as soon as there was a legalization of "marriage" for same-sex couples, they would be required to present the same "documentation" of their commitment as heterosexual couples do.

:hmm: Makes me wonder if I could sue your company for discrimination.... :hmm:

Edited as the message was long and boring.

I dont give a rats ass who marrys who. Marriage is a stupid institution, and I believe its very close to being abolished. What percentage of people stay married? Im sorry but the victory for gays having the right to same sex marriages is a small one. Marriage is a outdated and overrated.

Hopefully noone taks this post wrong. I have nothing but love for anyone who has the cajones to stand up for who they are. Its just that whats the point of fighting for something that has become so cheap.

it's only as cheap as the people make it.

I am 34 and I know plenty of people who've gotten married who've been married now for over 15 years. It's takes effort to make a marriage work. As far as I'm concerned a majority of the people who get divorced weren't ready to be married at the time. I'm glad that I didn't run off during my younger days I would be divorced now. I waited until I was much further along in my life and career and now am very much ready to settle down with my wife.

I have no clue, but I've heard people answer this question by saying that God created free will. Free will is what allows people to "become" gay. The fact that we can think for ourselves allows us all to act differently. However, because we have free will that mean we sometimes act in ways that God doesn't approve of. Does that make sense?

yep

I think the key problem in this issue is that we are a society in transition - as we become more diverse (yay!) we have to put our money where our mouths are in terms of living up to our national ideals. Granted, the consitution, like the bible, is open to interpretation based on the mores and norms of the times, but it seems pretty clear that they had in mind a secular state. Not necessarily a secular NATION but a secular government at least.

And that's where the key problem is right now - we're going from being a largely homogeneous Christian society to being a very diverse one in which a plurality of opinions have to be respected.

The big problem with marriage is (as others have stated here) that its religious aspects and its civil aspects have been completely collapsed. There are many people who are married civilly but have no interest in the religious underpinnings of marriage. And the state recognizes those marriages with legal door prizes (automatic medical power of attorney, inheritance rights, etc.). It seems downright hypocritical to deny similar rights to similarly civilly connected people just because they don't fit the religious definition of a marriageable couple according to many religions. However, it's difficult if not impossible for some people who believe they have a monopoly on truth (and till recently have had a monopoly on government as well) to admit that as a country we are moving toward a more broad-minded and objective perspective.

The other big problem with this controversy is that people are not thinking rationally, they are thinking ideologically. Some people simply can't stand that other people don't think the same things they do. Their beliefs are threatened by science (most scientists agree that homosexuality is in fact a largely biological and not a purley psychological phenomenon) and by constantly being confronted by Others Who Do Not Believe As We Do. It's these people, a small but vocal minority, who can't stand the cognitive dissonance of having a gay couple be accorded the same status as a hetero couple.

I think we're on our way to a more rational, tolerant society (at least that's my hope) but it's just going to take people time to adapt to this idea, the way it took time to adapting to the idea of civil rights for blacks and equal rights for women. I hope that someday people will recognize that love is love is love, whatever it looks like, and there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with that.

good post Lurkette. It's pretty hard to argue with that.

i couldn't agree more... i read it earlier but didn't have the chance to respond...

very well spoken... thank you... *warm smile*

we're watching a movie called 'philidelphia' in my english class and we're going to discuss the issue!

i'm gonna have a field day!

Sure, in primary character the state is secular. However, how do you account for the fact that the underpinnings of the majority (especially when you examine who votes) remain christian (oir at least religious)?

Are we moving so far away? I think it might be a matter of a simple reversion to a previous model. In any case, is it right to force acceptance on people when they think such a thing is wrong?

It's also worth noting that if you refer to America as the homogenous society that the country was founded due to religious (admittedly all-christian) persectution,

Does respect for plurality of opinion lie in every example?

There still has to be some boundary as to who can marry, right?
Children, animals etc... How do we now decide a basis for what things we should recognise as deserving of equality and what remains criminal.

Remember sexual laws are essentially a fashion. To the ancient Greeks, it was acceptable (nay, expected) that a boy (~14) be initiated into adulthood by a Man. This is clearly illegal by our standards.

Rational basis for argument is well and good, but this is a pure moral issue, and so it depends a great deal on ideology. Your (and I might add My similar) ideology of acceptance and equality can not truly be said to be any more rational than any other perspective. It depends on no empirical basis.

Anecdotal scientific "evidence" aside, the theory of the origin of homosexuality is, in my opinion, equally as irrelevent as the question of the "natural" quality of homosexual sex. Whether physchological or physiological, it is, to my mind not important, as we are far from the natural creatures we started out as.

Let's be fair. Some people oppose homosexuallty on a rational basis. They consider sexual intercourse to be restricted to procreation. They are neither backwater technophobes nor bigoted fools. They are people with an opinion, just not the one many others share.

Neither ethnic minorities nor women have reached equality. Indeed it could be argued that the whole experiment in Political Correctness has led to greater inequalities in certain areas while a backlash grows in those who do not fit into a useful category.

Society is, and will to my mind never be, a rational entity. humanity is not rational on an individual basis, so why expetc the net result to be rational?

Within certain boundaries, I agree...

Well, I gave it a go.

Lurkette made an excellent and well though out argument, I just want to test the boundaries of the statement.

I feel somthing of a heel :(

LOL manalone.

But what are you doing you fool? Don't you know that this is now page 5 and no social debate thread has ever made it to 6? She canny take it cap'n!

i thought about this a lot, and i have a question

wouldnt a man know more on how to please another man than a woman would?

the same case for women?

Some people say yes, some people say no. Anyone who has devoted their life(or part of it) to living with some would better know their s/o's needs and wants better than someone who hadn't devoted their life to being with that person.
Ex: Who knows better how you feel about things: your mother and father or that elderly couple who live down the street.

Gender has nothing to do with it. Everyone is wired different as people have often said in this thread alone. All men and women know as a general rule men like to get head. There are women who can't give head to save their life and some that should get medals for what they do. I'm sure the same could be said of males.

Being the same sex as your partner does not automatically make you better suited to know what they want. You might have a head start at guessing what they would like because you have the same parts, but that's all.

Are men better at blowjobs? Do women dive a better muff?

It's an interesting question. but it is one that I guess depends on the recipient's tastes way more than the gender of the partner.

Congrats to the couple. I see nothing wrong with sharing your heart with the whomever you choose it to be. It's not for anyone outside of oneself to decide who is truly right for you. Regardless of race, creed, religion, or sexual preference.

we had this discussion in my english class after watching philadelphia.


i was so ready for it, and i faced VERY VERY VERY LITTLE opposition.

about 95% in my class were for gay rights and gay marriages.

this is east texas we're talking about, captial of the bible belt.

if redneck hicks are for it, i cant image how others arent

Yeah. Pity about Bonobo, dolphins, and sundry species of birds, off the top of my head. Plenty of animals engage in same sex fucking. Sadly, one species of apes has some idiots with hangups about this.

That's be a hell of a surprise to the happy, successful, and well adjusted friends of mine raised by lesbians.

Perhaps you should get some life experience.

Of course. Racism is a valid world view too! How dare a Jew get offended by someone circulating the Elder Protocols of Zion and demanding we get rid of Jews.

The irony of someone whining about:

...and then propounding extremist moral relativism.


And therin lies the rub. I don't want to stop you believing whatever crap others believe. They want to interfere with the private life of my gay friends. These are not morally equivalent actions.

Well, there are two issues; one is the general principle - it's interesting to listen to people squeal when they feel the shoe's on the other foot. I've heard plenty of Christians whine "discrimination" for simply being put it a situation where their views are not automatically given prominence. Discrimination is no fun, and if you accept intervention on the general principle that your ability to get, hold, and advance in a job (for example) ought to be based on your ability to do it, you shouldn't be then trying to exclude people for non-job related reasons.

Put it another way: how many homophobic Christians would squeal like a stuck pig if they jost a job or a contract because of a capricious decision by a gay atheist who hates Christians?

The second is that while in a perfect world people would be let alone, we live in an imperfect world with entrenched power structures. Post slavery in the Southern US, the whites still had the bulk of land, money, and political power, and resurrected the Jim Crow laws. When those were struck down, the generally wealthier and more powerful whites still found ways to try to keep blacks from getting an fair shake.

So long as government intervention is aimed at giving people a fair shot based on their own merits, I don't see the problem, and anti-discrimination laws fall into this catgeory.

Come back and tell me when you're living on the streets because you can't get a job and no-one will rent a flat to you.

Perhaps you're not as drug free as you thought; someone's been spiking your Kool-aid, and now you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

The Bible also prescribes punishments for anyone wearing mixed fabrics. Worn any polycotton lately?

And besides, I fail to see why fairies at the bottom of the garden have to do with coming up with a decent, functional society. People are welcome to Xenu, Jesus, or UFOs, but forming public policy around them has a poor history.

This would be fine if marriage looked, across much of Western history, anything like the 50s nuclear family you are apparently assuming as the norm. The reality is that for much of our history, common-law marriages (de facto relationships), divorce, polygamy, temple prostitution and the like have been parts of orderly, functional societies such as classic Greece, Rome, down through to pre Victorian Europe.

Those societies managed. In fact, the biggest shift in family patterns - away from living in communities with one's extended family - actualy happened with the suburbinisation of the 40s and 50s in the West, and the rise of the nuclear family, disconnected from broader roots and ties.

If you're appalled by social changes since then, I suggest you spend a lot more time researching how people actually lived prior to the mass migration to the suburbs; it was very different, and very much not the classic nuclear family model. People who feel that's the solution to all our problems are, I would suggest, drawing the wrong conclusions. It's the starting point for most of them.

Aren't Texans big on the gummit butting out of their lives, in general? I imagine that plays a part for many otherwise conservative people who one may expect to be more strongly agin'. Consider Barry Goldwater as an example.