October 14

[Ben Kenobi]

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

How dare you judge the love that I have for my grandmother!

How do you know that I don't love her in the romantic sense? Do you have an amazing measuring rod of love?

[Q Classic]

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.

you first point is taken. it's not really the institution, but the people.
the problem though, is that for it to remain an institution, the people themselves have to continue it, they themselves have to propagate it, to safeguard it, to believe in it.
straight people have thus far shown that they don't seem to believe in it much anymore, that they don't much try to propagate it, or safeguard it, or even continue it.
one could argue that all of this "marriage shouldn't be for gays" is a move to safeguard it; i can buy that. but when weighed against the fact that 50% of straight couples head for a divorce within the first seven years of marriage? seems like an empty effort to me.

i honestly don't know whether gays will improve the ratio of divorce/not divorce, or if they'll lower the rate. i don't know if i feel that they themselves will safeguard it, or propagate it, continue it. what i do know is that some of them believe so strongly in it that they want it desperately.

why not give them the chance? it can't hurt the institution more than it already has, being now nothing more than a certificate and a circus to the general american public.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Japher:

I don't think you quite understand my point.

Everyone must do the action to universalise the action. A good paraphrase of Kant:

"To act as if your action,
Were a universal maxim."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


How dare you judge the love that I have for my grandmother!

How do you know that I don't love her in the romantic sense? Do you have an amazing measuring rod of love?

Now you are just blabbering nonsense.

[Japher]

Everyone must do the action to universalise the action.

So your against individuality and for oppression? I get it... No, not really, cause that's not nice.

How do you know that I don't love her in the romantic sense? Do you have an amazing measuring rod of love?

Your one sick puppy Ben, and your setting your self up with asking about anyones "amazing... rod of love"

[Q Classic]

'cause ben, that's kinda...

[Ben Kenobi]

i don't know if i feel that they themselves will safeguard it, or propagate it, continue it.

If we don't know, why are we encouraging this? Why not do what Bush does, and to reaffirm what marriage is supposed to be?

I understand your cynicalism, but I fear you paint too grim a picture. There are many good people out there in good marriages who are fighting for what they believe here in Canada.

We only lost the vote by 3 in the House of Commons, many Liberal MPs voted against the party line because they feared their constituents would kick them out otherwise. Surely the situation elsewhere would be better than Canada.

[Ben Kenobi]

'cause ben, that's kinda...

Yes, I know and you know, but can Mr. Fun bring himself to say why I should not?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mr. Fun:

Each point in turn:


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


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


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


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

1) One benefit is that the creation of families -- generally -- tend to create more community stability.

2) I have read about horror stories where a grieving gay lover was not allowed to see his/her dying spouse in hospitals.

3) Well duh -- to adopt a child, one needs to meet legitimate qualifications. But sexual orientation is simply not one of those legitimate qualifications.

4) So because we should not expect laws to magically change society overnight with these issues, does this mean that civil rights laws in regards to blacks should not have been legislated because they would not change social values overnight??

5) I'm not sure what you're saying here, exactly.

6) As long as mainstream society treats non-heterosexuals as pariahs, they will act in extremely unconventional ways -- getting it on in bath houses, and so forth. Yes, non-heterosexuals need to take responsibility for their own decisions and not blame entirely their own mistakes on society.

BUT how can they go about improving their life if they are discouraged by mainstream society's exclusion of non-heterosexuals??
Although, there are many other non-heterosexuals who do live basically conventional lifestyles in spite of this exclusion, but still . . . . .

[Ben Kenobi]

But leave the damned government out of it.

MtG:

I agree. Why should the government do anything to change the definition of marriage? The government has no legitimacy in either jurisdiction to define the term.

[Q Classic]

hm. perhaps to clarify, let me say that i'm not really of the mindset of encouraging it. i'm more of the mindset of why waste energy fighting against whether one group of people can get married or not, when we could so better devote that energy to fighting to keep the groups that are married together, together and happy.

i do realize that there are many good couples out there. my godparents have just reaffirmed their vows after fifty years of marriage; my brother's have been married almost 60. i know a whole slew of other people who have stayed together longer than the seven-year itch.

two of them are gay.

which makes me wonder why we shouldn't let them have a go at it, especially when so many clearly want it. including both of the couples mentioned above.

[Ben Kenobi]

BUT how can they go about improving their life if they are discouraged by mainstream society's exclusion of non-heterosexuals??

I have to go...

Won't be back until Tuesday.

Mr. Fun, I'm going to get a bit personal here. Why do you care what society thinks of you? One certainly can improve one's life without needing a certificate of approval from society. If we all were to wait for such certificate nothing would ever get done.

[MrFun]

I agree, Ben it's not that simple.

However, the fact that society does treat non-heterosexuals as pariahs, certainly does not help any.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If we don't know, why are we encouraging this? Why not do what Bush does, and to reaffirm what marriage is supposed to be?

Encouraging what? If government wishes to prohibit something to a certain class of people, there should be a compelling reason for that prohibition. I see no compelling reason to give a fair damn one way or the other about civil unions for THEM. And if some particular church or another should decide that it's within it's doctrine to let THEM marry, that's not really a concern of mine either, unless it's a church I happen to be a member of.

If they're all going to burn in hell or whatever, that's between them and God. Not between them and me, and not the proper concern of government.

There are many good people out there in good marriages who are fighting for what they believe here in Canada.

What exactly is to be fought for? How about a heterosexual "open marriage" of swingers, wife beaters, etc.? That's ok, but a couple of queers in a monogamous civil union isn't?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


MtG:

I agree. Why should the government do anything to change the definition of marriage? The government has no legitimacy in either jurisdiction to define the term.

Certainly - the Catholic Church does not consider (for it's members) a civil marriage to be sacramental, as it lacks the proper canonical form. It is considered a valid marriage, as the Church considers "a Las Vegas drive through wedding by two atheists" to be a valid marriage, as a Monsignor friend of mine put it. However, if a Catholic (at least in the US dioceses) marries outside the church sacrament of Holy Matrimony, the form and method for considering an annulment is entirely different, as the issues under canonical law are different.

At least in the US, church law has no bearing on secular law at any level of government. Since things like children's support, health and safety, property rights, inheritance and survivorship rights, power of attorney, etc. are issues of importance to local government, civil "marriage" laws relating to the various rights and duties of the parties have evolved in all jurisdictions. Changing the rules of those civil "marriages" has no bearing on sacramental marriage, just as the Catholic Church, for one, is free for it's own purposes to disregard civil dissolution.

They are two separate subjects, two separate issues, two separate sources of laws, so anything Canada or states in the United States do regarding civil "marriage" has no effect whatsoever on marriage under church law in any church. That being the case, opposition to civil union being available to specific classes of couples who are both of age and mental ability to consent is simply irrational.