October 14

[MrFun]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's fine. You now need to say why someone ought to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
QUOTE]



There needs to be legal recognition for secular, civil unions administered by justices of the peace between people of the same gender for important reasons:

1) to allow for the same tax benefits and privileges

2) to allow for the spouse to visit his/her spouse who is hospitalized

3) to allow for the same adoption process of a gay couple as that of the straight couple applying to adopt a child

4) to give gay couples the same social legitimacy as that of heterosexual couples

5) to allow for the same insurance coverage benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy

6) this is more plausible, BUT such legal recognition will give an increasing number of non-heterosexuals inroads into mainstream society, and thus, PERHAPS increasing the possibility that they will renounce the more extremely unconventional values such as bath houses, and other unconventional values

[MikeH]

Wow, Bush says something I don't like hearing it must be a day of the week ending in y.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The damned Yankee carpetbagger. Marriage and family law are not proper subjects for Federal infringement. Hoist on high the Bonny Blue Flag, boys!

Long live the Republic of Texas!



And Mike, you don't count anyway, so poof off.

[MikeH]

Lick my ring.

[MrFun]

You two can work out your domestic disputes over PM rather than doing this on public display through spam in my thread.

[MikeH]

It's not spam it's wit. Call yourself Mr Fun.

[MrFun]

Geez . . .


what a cry-baby.

[Ben Kenobi]

That all this is just semantics?

Gatekeeper:

I'm pointing out an assumption of your argument. Just because I love my grandmother does not mean that I ought to marry her.

The issue here is not love, but what is the purpose of marriage?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Everyone ought to be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

That is the foundation of the sacrament of marriage, yes.

The sacrament of marriage itself conveys no property, inheritance, survivorship, or similar rights - as those generally are civil, not ecclesiastical matters.

So then, why should secular government give a damn about a civil legal union between two adults of the same sex? It cannot "corrode" the sacrament, because it is not part of the sacrament.

Sure there is. Look at what's happening here in Canada. If you believe in preserving marriage, you ought to take concrete steps like this.

What's happening there in Canada? Are there hordes of heteros flying into the divorce courts demanding divorces because "my marriage is meaningless because you let a couple of... of.... of.... THEM get hitched

If you (the general you, not you personally) believe in preserving marriage, use some intelligence in the selection of who you marry, make sure you each clearly understand the other's expectations, communicate, and work on being a good partner.

But leave the damned government out of it.

What I like is that Bush recognises the corrosiveness of divorce and seeks to strengthen those marriages already in existence.

Which can not be done by government, and which is none of government's business in the first place.

[Ben Kenobi]

it can't hurt the institution any. marriage as an institution is all but crapped out now,

Qcubed:

Does the fault lie in the institution, or in the people? The difference between the two cases is that when married people fall short, the institution still remains. But what happens when the institution disappears entirely?

You cannot change the meaning of marriage, and expect everything else to remain the same.

[Japher]

In the eyes of the government marriage is set up as an institution of co-dependency. For this reason same sex unions should be allowed. As should any two people who cohabitate and rely on the other for a source of income or personal care, such as a widowed mother living with her widowed son or daughter, or a single person living with their mentally disabled sibling.

Yet, if that person wishes to break that union it would be like a divorce...

My two-cents

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

You have yet to produce a cogent argument not based on sectarian prejudice, as to why two people of the same gender should not be allowed to form a union which would be the equivalent of a heterosexual marriage.

Well, 'sectarian prejudice' must = christianity, eh?

I have yet to see any deleterious effects from my long term partnership (a marriage in all but name)

And I have yet to see any beneficial effects of such a union. One case is insufficient evidence.

- Australia still appears stable, Great Britain has not sunk into the sea, Melbourne is not wallowing in a mass of depravity and social disorder (any more than usual, that is).

So you admit that Melbourne wallows in depravity and social disorder?

I say that's a pretty sufficient admission. You need considerably more evidence to show that this has always been the case in Melbourne.

So please tell us, what (outside of what your biblical texts tell you) is so dangerous about two lesbians being married? Or two gay men?

Why outside of the bible? What scares you about those arguments?

Secondly, according to the principles of Kantianism, a moral action is one that can be universalisiable. A faithful union of two gay people cannot produce children, hence the institution destroys itself over time. Eventually there would be no people to get married.

I prefer to think of all humans as being potentially equal-don't you?

So people who are not married are somehow less equal than those who are? You realise that your assumptions cause you to contradict the principle of equality?

Alternative forms of marriage (to the Western Christian one) are common throughout the world- many cultures have men having more than one wife, for instance, or a wife having more than one husband.

But we are not talking about polygamy. We are talking about homosexuality. Do these societies sanction homosexual unions?

[Japher]

And I have yet to see any beneficial effects of such a union. One case is insufficient evidence.

Good point. Yet many legal actions come out of marriage that protect the union. Spouses cannot testify against each other, automatic dependent claim, insurance coverage (though at most of the companies I have worked for they cover SOs, yet private insurace companies don't always), and I am sure there are many others.

A faithful union of two gay people cannot produce children, hence the institution destroys itself over time. Eventually there would be no people to get married.

So? What's the problem? Let them do it and drive themselves to extinction, where's the harm?

But we are not talking about polygamy. We are talking about homosexuality. Do these societies sanction homosexual unions?

I don't think the conversation should be about "do" about "should"... Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to marry? The only I reason I see the government being against it is monetary... Yet, then again I don't think the government has any buisness imposing personal ethics on individuals. That takes brainwashing to a whole new level. Separate church and state or don't, and be done with it... no more of this hypocracy please.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Gatekeeper:

I'm pointing out an assumption of your argument. Just because I love my grandmother does not mean that I ought to marry her.

The issue here is not love, but what is the purpose of marriage?

what a joke


First off, there is a distinct difference between platonic love between biological family members, and that of intimate/romantic love between spouses.

Two gays or lesbians want to marry one another because they are intimately in love with one another -- that is definitely different from the platnoic love between you and your granny.

What other kind of illogical fallicies can you come up with?

[Ben Kenobi]

Mr. Fun:

Each point in turn:

1) to allow for the same tax benefits and privileges

Why? What benefits do these partnerships provide that aid society so that they should give the benefits and privileges?

2) to allow for the spouse to visit his/her spouse who is hospitalized

Why wouldn't they allow that in the US? Could not a friend visit a sick friend? You should not need to marry to visit someone who is sick.

3) to allow for the same adoption process of a gay couple as that of the straight couple applying to adopt a child

Are the benefits the same? Different cases ought to be treated differently.

4) to give gay couples the same social legitimacy as that of heterosexual couples

Aaah. So we see the REAL reason for this. Law cannot confer social legitimacy. You are going the wrong way if you expect people to treat the two exactly the same.

5) to allow for the same insurance coverage benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy

Are the risks the same? Last I checked insurance companies are businesses like any other.

6) this is more plausible, BUT such legal recognition will give an increasing number of non-heterosexuals inroads into mainstream society, and thus, PERHAPS increasing the possibility that they will renounce the more extremely unconventional values such as bath houses, and other unconventional values

So why don't they denounce these unconventional values today if they are so evil and horrible?