filtherton

Not yet, my friend. Not yet.

:::OshnSoul:::

a) that's judgement
b) because what I may think is okay, someone else may not
c) vice versa
d) to wrap in b and c, not everyone believe in the same "wrongs" and rights" and those "wrongs" and "rights" always change. for example, gay marriages were never okay until some states recently passed a bill legalizing it

No one HAS to do it- we choose to. I don't judge becuase it's petty, unfair, and I would not wish judgement upon me. It doesn't matter- we all have our own beliefs and morals, we are all different, but underneath I know we are all the same. Look at the big picture.

Jesus Pimp

Homosexuality is found in nature, so how can it be philisophically wrong?

__________________
Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

Mantus

An argument against semantics.

Scenario 1:

- A gay man tells you he got married.
- A straight man tells you he got married.

Is there any difference in the circumstances of each couple? Both have shared vows of commitment, both couples love each other, both will now be viewed as a family. The gay couple holds the same value and concept of marriage as the straight couple. The only difference between the two couples is superficial; both share the essence and meaning of marriage equally.

Scenario 2:

- A man tells you he got married.

Here confusion can occur. He could be married to a man or a woman. And this is where some of you people will be tempted to jump in saying that “marriage” should never be confused for anything other then a union between a man and a woman.

Yet there are other misunderstandings that can occur about the identity of his spouse. The race and age of the spouse is in question. Yet we determined that the factors are not an issue, the exterior shell of a person does not affect their value as a spouse. So the same logic would apply to a gay couple. The fact that the wife may be a man, does not affect his quality as a partner any more then woman’s race would effect her quality as a wife. His role in a relationship is equal to that of spouse in a heterosexual relationship.

So when we are told that some one got married, our impression of the couple should not be effected any more by the couple’s sexual orientation then by the color of their skin. Marriage is marriage.

An argument against tradition.

There have been many traditions in marriage. Couples of different tribes, races and classes have been denied marriage. Women who are infertile, men who are disabled, and people who are mentally handicapped have been denied the right to marry. These traditions were all dispelled for the benefit of brining people together.

A tradition should not be held on to if it is damaging to society. Slavery was a tradition that dated back to the beginning of civilization, yet we put a stop to its practice.

Not giving same-sex couples the right to marry damages the institution of marriage and our society. Marriage is about brining together two people who wish to share a common vow of life long commitment. We decided that race, class, health and age of an individual do not affect their ability to keep that commitment and neither does their sex. Therefore this tradition keeps people who love each other from solidifying their commitment to each other, it keeps them at a disadvantage from the rest of society. Any such tradition does not belong in our society.

adysav

Going on further, should I be allowed to marry my dog?
After all the exterior shell does not matter if I love my dog and she loves me.

a) Who decided that judging some else was a bad thing?
b) That is the whole point of this debate.

You do judge people, you're only human. If you have never passed judgement on another person because something they said or did or didn't do then you are in a tiny minority (of 1). I suppose you don't have any friend, because to do so you would have to make judgements about who you do and don't like and why. Maybe you just love everyone unconditionally.
So is murder...

Mantus

That is wrong from both a legal and a traditional perspective.

A dog is incapable of fulfilling the vows of commitment that are the essence of marriage. A dog is not a person and thus the laws surrounding legal-union do not apply to it. So no, we will not start marrying animals if we allow same-sex marriage...that some one would actually think that is mind-boggling.

FoolThemAll

Yeah. Dogs aren't able to consent properly, either. (Nor are children, and the line there is arbitrary yet necessary.)

Joke: How can you tell if an animal consents to an act of bestiality?

It pushes back.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

filtherton

If your dog is capable of critical thought and communicating complex ideas through language, than by all means. Otherwise that's kind of an irrelevant position to take. I'm hope you're aware of the fundamentally different dynamics involved in interspecies relationships.


I still haven't heard any actual reason why the definition of marriage should be preserved to mean a penis and vagina commitment before god rather than a commitment before god. Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Over and over and over and over again.

The real mystery is...

Is there a reason at all?

adysav

Is an adult who is mentally retarded capable of marrying?

edit:
Would marrying my dog be valid if we could somehow cross the language and general communication barrier to acertain whether my dog wants to be with me as a happy couple?
That seems to be the only real criteria for the marriages suggested, and one which I think is actually feasible to ask of a dog had we the capability.

martinguerre

as a queer Christian, i use this as my shortform explanation. God does not have a sex ethic. God does have a love ethic.

In trying to make a slippery slope arguement...people forget that they are trying to compare a truely loving relationship between 2 consenting adults to something that does not have the intimacy, consent, or love. It's really not much of an arguement, IMO.

adysav

Just so I'm clear on this, are we primarily talking about marriage in the eyes of the church or in the eyes of the law?
I am just curious as to the main benefit that a couple would incur by marrying.
(cue 'acceptance' posts)

FoolThemAll

I might've missed someone addressing this before...but what about incestual relationships between cosenting adults? Would it not be possible for the intimacy and love to be there? And if so, should marriage be a legal option for them? Why or why not?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

adysav

And indeed marriage between 7 people of various genders/familial ties.

filtherton

Well, i guess if we wanted to delve in to the magical land of make-believe we should probably be worried about whether it is ethical for species who are biologically asexual to get married. Should fungi be allowed to get married? Is that a state's right's issue or a federal one?


Why does that matter to you, you're primarily concerned with defining words for everyone else to use. If you were truly concerned about the ramifications you would acknowledge that allowing gays to marry would have absolutely zero effect on your quality of life.

Well, as long as their heterosexual, right? I mean, that's all you seem to care about when it comes to marriage.

martinguerre

"I am just curious as to the main benefit that a couple would incur by marrying.
(cue 'acceptance' posts)"

To me, it will be most important that my marriage (whether to a man or a woman) be in the church. My relationship with God cannot be secondary to the rest of my life...especially something so pivital as a marriage. I'd also like to a full citizen, regardless of who i marry. the civil benifits matter, too. Marriage is not just an agreement...its a sacred pact between two individuals, their community, and their God. So, yeah. That's why i think marriage is important. Acceptance is nice...its crucial that the community support and honor the relationship that they help consecrate (remember how the congregation says stuff during the ceremony? they're part of that marriage, as witnesses and supporters). I'm not sure what you're driving at...but i wanted to give you the sense that the desire for queer marriage isn't just a tool or ploy....its not just about "acceptance" in some vague and meaningless fashion.

"I might've missed someone addressing this before...but what about incestual relationships between cosenting adults? Would it not be possible for the intimacy and love to be there? And if so, should marriage be a legal option for them? Why or why not?"
I'd argue this. When close family members engage such behavior, it is not so much that they are violating the definition of marriage, as they are violating the definition of family. Yes, it is possible that two, consenting and loving adults engage in incenst. But...i believe it is a breach of the love ethic i was speaking of earlier. Being part of a family...living together, sharing meals, growing up alongside one another...these form a promise and compact. To break those boundaries of trust, and to try to form a pair-bond in that situation is a breach of those promises. To be a good brother or sister, etc... is to my understanding, mutually incompatible with engaging in sexual intimacy. Simply put...it is not possible to commit incest without irrevocably altering, and i believe damaging, an existing familial relationship...thus rendering such behavior incompatible with Christian teaching.

"And indeed marriage between 7 people"

This is why i include intimacy in my definition. Multiple partner relationships do not posess the level of intimacy that two person relationships do. Unless every partner is present any time that any partners are together...there is one or more persons not in the loop for some component of the relationship. Western culture has made several attempts at heteronormative multiple marrage...and none have been terribly durable. For instance...Mormon polygamy limited sexual contact to husband to wife, but has fallen out of favor except in a few fringe sects. Multiple partner marriage isn't about queerness. In its practice, it has been a hetero thing...and has failed at producing cohesive family structures.

adysav

Murdering a billion chinese people would have absolutely zero effect on the quality of my life.
I do not have any 'concerns'. You say that like you assume I'm hideously anti-gay and just trying to stamp 'gay = bad' on this thread.
What I am curious about is whether homosexuals are purely concerned with being treated like everyone else within society, or given the same economic benefits as married heterosexuals, or accepted by their religion.

FoolThemAll

Huh? Dude, I'm pro-gay marriage. (edit) As long as they're both from the same race. I'm wondering how far others are willing to go and how they attempt to justify their limits.

Martinguerre: so you're against polygamous and incestuous marriages being legal institutions, I take it?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

adysav

One of the main criticisms levelled at homosexual marriage is that it does not promote 'healthy' (for want of a better word) family life.

filtherton

I don't assume anything, except what you force me to by pretending (hopefully) to not be able to see the difference between homosexuality and bestiality. You should be more concerned about limiting the religious freedom of gays who are accepted and allowed to marry by their religion.


My fault. I guess i just assumed you were trying to make some kind of half-baked slippery slope argument. To be honest, i could care less it a brother and sister chose to get married, and i can't imagine why anyone would believe it to be their place to tell them they couldn't.

martinguerre

Which would concern me...had queer families been found to be less capable at forming stable families. Quite the opposite.

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sect...entDisplay.cfm


From that source...

adysav

I take it you have it on equally good authority that incestuous couples are bad parents then.
I'm not going to let this one go because it is 'incompatible with Christian teaching'. According to the Bible homosexuality itself is sinful and women are to be subordinates.

martinguerre

well, frankly, i don't think such broad studies are available. in that sense, this is an arguement awaiting the facts.

In the mean time, i think the best arguement is self-evident. While many relationships ultimately end in separation or divorce, there is no such thing as an ex-sibling. In subordinating the familial relation to the romantic one, there is a sharply increased risk of serious trauma to the family. The couple is imposing this risk on the other family members, as well. Would you like to choose between a brother and a sister in a messy divorce? Family members have duties to one other...to take up romantic relationship inevitably involves breach of those duties.

And no, i don't think the Bible condemns homosexual relationships. And no, i certainly don't think it "simply" says that women are to be subordinates. It names them as deacons, apostles, saints, disciples, judges, prophets, and elders. The more authentic we are to the words and teachings of Jesus...the vision we see is remarkably egalitarian.


http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

This link explains the various "slam" passages that are used against queers. Nor does each passage have equal weight, IMO. These isolated incidents conflict with greater message. Many authors and figures in the bible display a remarkable disregard for the sexual politics of their day: the adulteress woman, jesus' linage, tamar's conspiracy, etc... They ALWAYS display a remarkable concern for justice, love and responsiveness to God's continuing revelation.

adysav

I don't feel I have a duty to my family, if you do that's fine. If I left the country tomorrow and my duties went unfulfilled that wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
How about breaking up a friendship between unrelated people to start a doomed relationship?
Looking at it from such a negative point of view seems to advocate not starting any relationships at all for fear that they will inevitably sour.
---
Various branches of Christianity treat the issue of homosexuality differently, as with most things. You obviously support a more liberal view of the Bible, there are others who will say that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. I'm not just talking about half-arsed out of context quotes either.
Personally, I couldn't care less what the Bible says, I might as well take my guidance from a copy of The Lord of the Rings (yes i know it has christian undertones :P).

To be brutally honest with you, I don't like homosexuality. I don't care much for heterosexual marriage either. Whatever relationship goes on between people behind closed doors is their own business and I'd much rather not know about any of it.
Why parade around making your sexual leanings a matter of public knowledge, like anyone really cares what you personally do or don't do. You're not doing anything new or revelationary, I would bet that if you brand your partners balls with hot iron there will be someone somewhere who likes to do the same.

Scrap the whole fking lot of it, public declaration of love especially. Noone cares but your friends, so tell them, not us.
If noone knows your marital status, sexual preference or favourite colour then they can't be prejudiced on those grounds. Unless you're clearly a camped up raving bender or a ladyboy with big hands.

adysav

oh oh, there was a question I have that is slightly off topic.

Whatever happened to the vengeful and proactive God that we see in the Genesis quote on the page you referenced.

"Unfortunately, Lot's wife looked the wrong way, so God killed her because of her curiosity."

Now a lot of people might consider that a touch harsh, and more than a little unforgiving. He killed a woman because she looked the wrong way. He rained fire and brimstone on a town because they were inhospitable. What the fuck has happened to your god that chilled him out so much?
Look at the world today... rape, murder, fraud, extortion, robbery, torture and that most accursed of sins, inhospitability.. are rife in todays society. As far as I know there are no stories of god having actively engaged the human race for thousands of years. If anyone is deserving of a good smiting it is us, now. Bring on that fucking brimstone. While you're at it, take all those who worship false idols. Why doesn't he just annihilate the sikhs, muslims, buddhists and those irritating bloody wiccans.
He should go back to the good old days when he would drop a man for being a bit mean.

martinguerre

This is off topic. So i won't respond here. Feel free to read Whosoever, or ask elsewhere in the forum.

You had asked why it was wrong from a Christian standpoint, if i'm not mistaken. I answered...

And no, possible break up is not the core of my arguement. Even if you are a good spouse, i don't think that at the same time you can be a good sibiling or cousin or whatever...to a close family member. The roles have starkly different responsibilities...to suceed at one means failure at the other.

Then why show up in a thread about either? Do you hang out in threads about straight marraige and get this involved, too? Do wedding invites come as insults to you?

As i've talked about before...i feel that marriage is not just about closed doors. I'm not going to ask you to get married, or to show up for mine. Fair enough?

adysav

Do you seriously believe there is an answer for that on one of these forums?
What responsibilities do brother and sister have to each other exactly? And how do they prevent you from being a good spouse?

Having a negative opinion is as good a reason as any. You don't expect everyone to just turn up and start praising gay people and what an atrocity it is that homosexual marriage is not treated equally do you?
I don't think I've ever been invited to a wedding. Like I said, people can keep their business to themselves and that's fine with me.
I've never been invited to the loss of a friends virginity, or the opening of their first bank account either.

Why does public knowledge of your arrangements with someone make the slightest bit of difference to other people except those you explicitly want to tell? Why make an outward show of it?

asaris

Incestuous relationships are against the interest of the state since they tend to lead to inbred offspring. Marriage should be done in public, because the ability of people to hold you to your vows helps the stability of marriage, and that is in the state's interest.

Anyway, so far I've only been talking about marriage as a civil institution, but Martin Guerre brings up some interesting points about marriage as a Christian institution, as well as an interesting web site. I agree with a lot of what he says, and a lot of what the site says, but I am still of the opinion that homosexual activity, according to scripture, is sinful. Perhaps not especially sinful, but still sinful. I hope he'll forgive my lack of sources, since it's been several years since I researched the issue.

The site he mentions, whosoever.org, makes a number of counter-arguments to the arguments of someone who is against homosexual activity, and most of them are spot on. The only two I have even minor quibbles about is their discussion of the term malakoi arsenokotai. They strongly imply that there's no way this term means homosexuality -- and that is, of course, false. It could mean homosexuality, or masturbation, or something else. We don't know. And in general, on the NT quotes, they are very quick to explain away more explicit quotes, in a way that may or may not be accurate. They're right if all they're saying is that Paul might just be talking about temple prostitution, they're going a bit far if they're saying that this is in fact the case, and I find their insinuations that Paul is only talking about certain sorts of homosexual activity odd, to say the least. What could this mean, that oral sex b/w men is okay but anal sex is bad? I have my doubts.

The difficulty with looking at the scriptural perspective on homosexuality is that it didn't exist back then -- not in the way we think of it today. It seems that, in general, people's sexual preferences are more like on a continuum; very few people are only attracted to one gender or another, though most do tend strongly to be attracted to one gender or another. Our society tend to stick people into boxes based on where they happen to be on this continuum, so we get the socially constructed categories of gay, bi, and straight. In the ancient world, they did not have these categories. So, for example, in the Greek world, plenty of men had what we would now call homosexual relationships with their students without anyone thinking to put them in a box labeled gay.

But none of that means that, at the end of day, scripture isn't clear enough on homosexuality activity. Why is that? Well, scripture teaches that sexual activity ought only take place within marriage. It's also very clear that marriage is instituted by God as a relationship between a man and a woman (cf. Genesis, a position which is reaffirmed in the gospels.) So, scripture teaches that homosexual activity is sinful.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Halx

...but for someone who doesn't give a shit about scripture, the point is moot. Nothing is sinful because sin does not exist. All that exists are the ties that humans form between themselves. These ties are affected by two things: hurt and help. Since homosexuality does neither, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

For the last two weeks, I've been hanging out with a group of gay guys, playing poker. If anything, I come out more enriched because they are a group of normal people who are fun to hang out with... they just happen to have a different sexual preference than I. This does me no harm. Hell, they're more nice to me than a group of straight guys would be.

I cannot understand how anyone would construe homosexuality as being wrong without falling back on religion. If religion is the only force telling us that homosexuality is wrong, I would begin to question the merits of said religion. It sounds like a lecherous force to me.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Mantus

Adsyv, I got to say, I am having allot of problem trying to figure out just what your argument is. Most of your responses are very short and are in forms of questions. So it forces me to write rather long responses to cover as many angles as possible.

Back in post #36 there was talk about how we should call objects or animals by their proper tittles. I agree with this – a dog should be called by its proper title. Yet if we see an animal that is in every way like a dog, accept one that we have never seen before, it would be easier to call it a “dog” rather then create a new title for it. Later we can calcify it as a new breed.

Let’s say that a person is watching a program on TV where two trained monkeys go though a marriage ceremony. The next day at work the person tells his coworkers about the strange even he saw on TV. He doesn’t need to make up a new word to describe the event. The person will tell his coworkers that he saw two monkeys get “married”. And the people will understand that even though he used the word “married”; the monkeys are not actually legally married, that one will not receive the other’s bananas if it dies and that the government wont take a percentage of those bananas.

What this shows is that “marriage” was never a word that was specifically used to describe the marriage between a man and a woman. It can be used to describe similar events between different species, objects or whatever. Yet depending on the context of it’s use the meaning is altered.

In my post #44 I described how the concept of marriage between a man and a woman is pretty much the same as that of two people of the same sex, the primary difference being the sexual orientation of the couples. People will still clarify this last point, just like people will eventually clarify that a guy’s wife is Chinese or that a woman’s husband is in a wheel chair. But all these couples capture the primary image of marriage.

~//~

As long as some one is willing to perform a ceremony we will call it marriage. Whether it’s two white people, a man and three women, a woman and a dog or a plant and a rock we can have marriage ceremonies for all of them. Yet it is the government that determines whether these ceremonies are legal unions. There are rights and recognition that come with legal marriage.

At the moment, the proposed laws state that same-sex couples do not have the right to legally marry in a church but they have the right to a civil union. Another words, the government says that there is nothing constitutionally wrong with a same-sex couple being legally united. Yet judges that churches do not have the right to practice a legal marriage ceremony with same-sex couples.

If nothing wrong is found with the concept of a same-sex legal union, then there should be absolutely no reason to not allow same-sex legal marriage. It is not the governments place to decide which religion is right and wrong.

~//~

I assume by this you mean having children. Yet children are not a necessary part of marriage and that legal aspects of this issue can be addressed separately. Such an issue comes up with mentally handicapped people who are allowed to marry yet their ability to raise children is questionable.

In the end, the major hurdle that children of same-sex couples experience is external rather then internal. Same-sex couples have been proven to be equally capable of raising children, yet they cannot control the bigotry that their children have to face in the world.

Thus the problem doesn’t lie with the same-sex couple but with social disabilities of our society. This is problem that we can address separately from same-sex marriage.

~//~

Finally,

Polygamy, people marrying dogs, their siblings or mentally handicapped people being married are NOT part of the same issue. The government must determine the legality of each one a case-by-case basis. Please stop bringing absolutely irrelevant issues to this debate.

There is what these arguments equal too:

Statement: "People of all races have the right to be married"
Argument: "So should rocks and plants be married?"

Doest work.

Halx

I wanna add that children of gay parents (adopted, surrogate, insemenated.. whatever) are no more likely to become gay when they grow older than children of straight parents. Statistical fact.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

martinguerre

??? If you want to start a different line of questioning, start a new thread. It's board policy, if i understand correctly, and common courtesy to boot.

How about being someone who's supposed to have your back without trying to sleep with you? It's a rough definition...but i think it sounds about right.


Which is why i don't get why your posting. A group of people, not you, think its important to have weddings conducted in a community context. A group of people, not you again, are contesting for the meaning of those weddings. A group of people, still...not you, are trying to figure out what marraige means. So. Why are you posting? Not that you don't have something interesting to say. I've never heard anything quite like it. But your logical position seems to point towards a pattern of disengagement, not action. You don't care for marriage, and the public ramifications, and think that it should be private. So...why make a public dispute of it? If you aren't being invited, etc...why is it that you seem to care so much?



From the very beginning of the church, marriage was considered a sacrament...and instance in which a outward action reflected indwelling of God's grace. While i have no desire to have my wedding on TV or in the nation press...i would like it recognized by the church of which i'm a part. This doesn't strike me as particularly attention getting, or showy. I'd like to know why you seem to think it is.

This does seem to be a guilt by association arguement. I would also dispute that it is only religion that is fueling homophobia.

filtherton

So your argument essentially boils down to: It's dumb and i don't care about it so why is anyone making a big deal out of it?

FoolThemAll

Disagree. Many people in support of gay unions/marriage insist that it should be allowed because marriage is between two people that love each other and wish to make a lifelong commitment. They argue that the sex of the two people in question is irrelevant. It is, then, fair to ask if the species, age, quantity, or previous relation is relevant, because it is a test of their definition of marriage and their reasoning for it.

Species is easy enough: sheep can't properly consent. So is age, and for the very same reason. But what of the other two, polygamy and incest? My tentative answer, although I don't (yet?) hold this position strongly, is that those relationships should be a legal option as well.

What about you?

Source?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

adysav

Wow, so many responses, I appreciate the effort of those who reply to my somewhat rambly and seemingly pointless musings, I really do.

FoolThemAll has it spot on in the last post, although I would contend that my dog loves me unconditionally. It's not like I'd ask just any old animal to marry me, that would be silly whether they were an animal or not.
I suppose it's a strange case of Stockholm Syndrome, my dog eventually falling in love with the man who keeps her captive.

I don't actually have a dog, but just to make a point you understand...

I think I should review the last few posts and reaffirm my position on the subject before I reply.

adysav

Well yes, because that is the definition of inbred. I think what you're getting at is that inbred children are more likely to bear genetic predisposition to particular types of medical condition than children of conventional couples. If that is the case then it should be illegal for any couple who carry inherited conditions to have children.
I don't think something like that should be enforced, but if I had an inheritable condition which would be passed onto my children I would make a personal sacrifice and not have any children.

Me too, sorry about that. I actually had to read up to find out what I was talking about.

If u want 2 abuse it (ho ho :/), and use it in an inappropriate context that does not change it's meaning. As far as I am aware it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. It can also be used as a metaphor to describe two seemingly different things brought together, but that doesn't refer to the legal union we are talking about. So it doesn't count.

It was a rhetorical question. There is no answer to the question anywhere, nevermind buried somewhere in an online forum.


We're talking about mutual consent and a deep love for one another, not some 14 year old kid wanting to get his rocks off while the baby sitter is watching TV.

This is a forum, I'm just airing my opinion. Generally if I don't have an opinion before I started posting I will formulate one as required in order to get involved.

Showy was not what I said. The fact that you have to refer to a couple as Mr and Mrs Blah, or put your marital status on forms is what I meant. It may sound trivial or even stupid.
Most of the people here agree that marriage should be based on the fact that the people involved should love each other. Why should I have to enter into a contract with a person to show that I love them? Doesn't that sound a bit odd... "yes i love you, look our marriage licence is proof".
Many would argue that marriage makes it more difficult for people to separate and that is a good thing. If love is the sole criterion for being together, then trying to make it difficult for people to separate when they no longer love each other sounds ridiculous to me.

I have been part of a romantically involved couple with my girlfriend for 5 years. I know married couples who were together for a matter of months before getting hitched. Why should they receive economic and civil benefits that I do not? My girlfriend and I are independent people, and I would prefer we were seen as two individuals rather than one legal entity. Originally marriage was no business of the state and I don't believe it should be now.

In this situation a gay couple would be able to consider themselves as much 'married' as any other couple and everyone would enjoy the same rights.

Special thanks to filtherton for quoting my whole post then replying with one line that adds exactly nothing to the discussion.

martinguerre

This is where i'll simply leave you be. As long as your distain for marriage is equal opportunity...i can feel confident that closing this discussion is simply a recognition of deep aesthetic differences, and not an intellectual question. To me, marriage isn't a contract, but a covenant...marriages are not private affairs between isolated people, but a reflection of the community that recognizes them. The difference between those things has everything to do with my religious idenity and cultural background, which i can't reasonably expect you to share. So...agree to disagree?

as for the rest...dogs, no matter how loyal, cannot give informed consent. quite frankly, i think we're beyond reason when this arguement gets trotted out.

gondath

In an attempt to get the thread back towards the topic, I'll answer yes and no. I rather enjoy the idea of two attractive lesbians together, but that's the extent of it. The rest of them are wrong in my book. I'd like to clarify that I am using my own personal criteria of weighing the benefits and drawbacks towards myself in my assessment. From a larger perspective of community, I think it is wrong all the way with no exceptions. I don't support hedonism in a larger sense and I don't believe in love.

Mantus

It’s de-railing the argument and distracting from the issue. People marrying animals, their children or multiple partners are separate issues. Even though these issues have a common theme we cannot tackle them at the same time because each one has its own set of circumstance.

As far as the definition argument goes, I really don’t understand the whole point of it in the first place. Definitions are not carved in stone. Definitions differ depending on culture and religion and change all the time.

Changing the legal definition of marriage to accomodate same-sex couples does no damage to society, retains the essence of the word and alleviates alienation of a social group. I see absolutely no reason not to change it.

irateplatypus

i agree that separation between the various wrinkles in the issue is necessary, but i don't it has been given in an intellectually honest way.

nearly all of the defense of homosexual marriage arguments base homosexual marriage's legitimacy on the idea that it contains all necessary requirements for marriage (commitment, love, etc.)... but don't recognize that the exact same criteria they use for their argument has equal weight when used by someone who advocates incest or polygamy.

they do not accept incest and polygamy even though they ask others to accept homosexual marriage on the exact same principle. perhaps there are more compelling arguments for homosexual marriage, but i don't think the ones given hold water.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

filtherton

Like i said above, it doesn't matter to me, and i have no clue as to why it matters to you.

I have the same problem as you, though, in that i haven't heard an argument against homosexual marriage that holds water. In fact, everytime i play the trump card, the "prohibiting gay marriage limits the religious freedom of those religions that allow gay marriage" it just gets ignored. I think i will start a thread devoted solely to this. Yeah, that' just what i am going to do.