October 14

[Az]

No, not anymore.

[Kuciwalker]

This thread should definately be closed now.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Azazel
No, not anymore.

You know what a sadist does to a masochist?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
I can't continue any serious discussion with Ben's illogical, strawman arguments that lack coherency and relevancy.

I thought those type of arguments would be very familiar ground.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

What religious ought to do is follow their own dogma and leadership, and those authorities they recognize on such matters. It's not your place, unless you're in such a position of authority within a particular religion, to impose or advocate doctrine.

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.

One might argue that there are multiple threads within "contemporary society" that are mutually exclusive, so there is no set "society" to adapt to. The Federal government doesn't need to get involved in this, however, any more than it is involved in other civil marriage. That is a state matter, and the only involvement of the Federal government is contained in the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

That way, religious leaders can have their bottle, and non-heterosexuals will be able to move further into mainstream society by creating their own stable, healthy families with all the legal privileges and protection.

What is that first part supposed to mean?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What is that first part supposed to mean?

You mean what I meant by ". . . that way, the religious leaders can have their bottle?"

= let the baby have its bottle

[Ben Kenobi]

LotM:

What would be the problem with establishing a legal relationship to take care of problems like this, without calling it marriage or giving it all the legal rights of marriage?

I have no problems with such a deal, since one ought to be able to set whomever you want as your next of kin.

Azazel:

Now you agree that a person having a homosexual relationship outside the borders of the family won't cause nearly as much trouble?

No. There are still going to be families that break up because of it.

[MrFun]

How do families created by non-heterosexuals threaten other families??

I don't think I will ever understand that fallacy that other marriages and families will be threatened.