October 14

[Az]

I argue that religions ought to recognize and sanction marriage between two people regardless of sexual orientation.

However, I do not wish to see the government intervening in any religion, so I believe that if religions do not wish to adapt to contemporary society, that the federal government needs to legislate legal recognition for civil unions administered by justices of the peace.

I can live with that point of view. However I don't think that religions ought to except homosexual unions. If religions are allowed to frown upon other behavior which 'isn't right', why shouldn't they be able to frown upon homosexuality?

I say, we should ban all religions.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrFun
Oh, and your purported sexual attraction for your grandmother is a rather ridiculous strawman.

Why is this a strawman? I think it brings up a very valid point. Why does marriage have to be about sex?

Homosexuals et al are not complaining that they cannot have sex with each other - they are either complaining that there is no way of obtaining the same legal rights with respect to one another as married couples have, or that they are unable to 'legitimise' their relationship in the eyes of society.

The second complaint is just silly because why would they need to be ligitimised in the eyes of people they don't like - surely to all 'reasonable' people (ie. those whose opinions matter) their relationship is already recognised.

The first complaint doesn't really hold either, because they can simply enter a contract with one another which gives them the rights of a married couple. Nevertheless, I understand that they might want this to become 'easier', 'legitimising' them in some more conventional style.

If that is so, wouldn't it be better to do away with state 'marriage' altogether, and just have a standard legal contract which gives all the rights of marriage to the people who sign it. That way it becomes unrelated to sex. If I were to have a male best friend who I did everything with (live with etc) but didn't have sex with, why should he not have the same rights as a 'partner'? This comes back to Ben's grandmother - why shouldn't Ben be allowed to give his grandmother the same rights without implying sexual relations (yuck!). Also 3 people or more would be able to join such a contract.

The fact of the matter is that the state shouldn't care what you do in your bed. But this holds not only for homosexuals, but everyone else.

Then 'marriage' in the traditional sense (white dress in a church) could be left to the church. They can decide their own criterion and since they are private organisations confering no legal status it is up to them what criterion they choose.

[FrustratedPoet]

The fact of the matter is that the state shouldn't care what you do in your bed. But this holds not only for homosexuals, but everyone else.

Then 'marriage' in the traditional sense (white dress in a church) could be left to the church. They can decide their own criterion and since they are private organisations confering no legal status it is up to them what criterion they choose.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why is this a strawman? I think it brings up a very valid point. Why does marriage have to be about sex?

You can argue until blue in the face, but the two remain intertwined.

In fact, marriage legitimises sex. Extramarital sex is a bad, bad thing.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Extramarital sex is a bad, bad thing.

Only if you're a religious lunatic. Religion needs to be seperated from the legal status of marriage.

[Az]

Extramarital sex is a bad, bad thing.

say, are you married, UR?

[Urban Ranger]

FP,

Why? I see that marriage is a promise. More precisely, a promise of promises, and one of them is you are not going to have sex with anybody other than your spouse.


Azazel,

No

Main Entry: ex·tra·mar·i·tal
Pronunciation: "ek-str&-'mar-&-t&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1925
: of, relating to, or being sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her spouse : ADULTEROUS

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
More precisely, a promise of promises, and one of them is you are not going to have sex with anybody other than your spouse.

It doesn't have to be related to sex in any way: it's simply a legal contract binding two people together in law. Who they do or do not have sex with shouldn't be relevant - or rather it doesn't have to be relevant unless both parties want it to be.

[Az]

oh.

[FrustratedPoet]

great pic!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
It doesn't have to be related to sex in any way: it's simply a legal contract binding two people together in law. Who they do or do not have sex with shouldn't be relevant - or rather it doesn't have to be relevant unless both parties want it to be.

Our difference is I see it more than just a legal contract.

Even if you see it as a legal contract, certainly if it doesn't have to be related to sex. Then again, it doesn't have to relate to anything. In which case, why bother?

[FrustratedPoet]

I'm not sure why people bother. Perhaps they can get tax breaks or other benefits by being legally married? That would depend on the country I suppose. That's the only reason beyond religion why I could imagine anyone would bother.

Committing yourself to a life-long partnership with someone (of any gender, with or without sex) is a very nice thing to do. It shows your friends, family and acquaintances how much you care about each other. Wonderful. As for signing the same piece of paper and telling the government about it too ... well ... if you're not going to make a profit from it then why bother? Especially if your government is so narrow-minded and bigoted that they won't let you sign the piece of paper in the first place....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Committing yourself to a life-long partnership with someone (of any gender, with or without sex) is a very nice thing to do.

I am confused.

If your marriage is not about anything at all, where's the bond?

[MrFun]

dp

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
If I were to have a male best friend who I did everything with (live with etc) but didn't have sex with, why should he not have the same rights as a 'partner'? This comes back to Ben's grandmother - why shouldn't Ben be allowed to give his grandmother the same rights without implying sexual relations (yuck!). Also 3 people or more would be able to join such a contract.

I still fail to understand how friendships and relations with grandparents are discriminated against in society.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The fact of the matter is that the state shouldn't care what you do in your bed. But this holds not only for homosexuals, but everyone else.

Then 'marriage' in the traditional sense (white dress in a church) could be left to the church. They can decide their own criterion and since they are private organisations confering no legal status it is up to them what criterion they choose.

Read my recent posts -- I am against government intervention by havin them tell religious institutions what their rules should be.

Rather, I argue for secular, civil unions.