Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships?

[Theben]

Actually I'm almost finished with my coffee.

[MrFun]

oh, ok

[Ben Kenobi]

Traditional marriage included polygamy, and in a few places polyandry.

So? Do any of the places that allow polygamy allow also for homosexual marriage?

this evolution of the term can continue

Then it isn't traditional to evolve the term. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

The government could say "marriage is a contract to join bloodlines and any joining that can not lead to children being created does not count as marriage".

So this is a definition of marriage, you would support, GePap?

The state is less able to justify saying "marriage is between two people who love each other- but only of different sexes".

Does the state, in fact, say such a thing? I don't see love anywhere in the requirements, just one man and one woman.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Does the state, in fact, say such a thing? I don't see love anywhere in the requirements, just one man and one woman.

AND A BURRITO!!

[Agathon]

Of course they shouldn't be able to get married and neither should any of the other "deviants" we have "staying" in our "holiday camps".

[Mercator]

I'm afraid I'll be going on a bit of a tangent here, but I am going somewhere with this. Ben, what do you think about the following two articles?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_04/b3767016.htm

http://www.ijtihad.org/ideas.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

Mercator:

Islamic lands place severe restrictions on women, spawn rapacious rulers, and lack a separation between religion and state.

The sooner we realize the absence of ideas and encourage, freedom of thought, creativity, and intellectual self-determination, the sooner will we recover some semblance of our past glory

You touch on an interesting point. It came up in my RCIA class. There is a balance between tradition, and traditionalism. There are different ways, to express faith, but the essential doctrine will remain the same.

I agree that there should be a seperation between church and state. It would be shocking to hear a Mennonite argue otherwise, given that they have been traditionally outcasts. In fact, they tend to shun politics because it is seen as becoming too involved with the world. What is another matter, is for a Catholic to say the same thing. Catholics are changing their conception of the role of faith, and have been doing so for the past 300 years. They are starting to realise that keeping the state out of religion, assists the religion, as it does the state.

Now, I want to be clear as to what this seperation entails. I'm a little cautious when considering Muslim writers on this concept, but it does not mean that faith should not interact with the state, but rather there is no established religion, and de facto religious freedom.

[boann]

i don't think the govt should set up what rules for morality. i think if two people want to be married then
they should be allowed to regardless of sex or color or whatever. its just a commitment which is there regardless of the law.. it just provides for legal support.
i mean do you even know what a gay couple goes thru when one is just in the hospital... they aren't even considered members of the family. its just terrible how some laws can set up situations that cause so much grief and pain. the govt just needs to get out of the morality business and stick to protecting and upholding and defending.

i mean.. they should get us some more jobs in country
and let folks pursue their own happiness... i mean that is in the constitution isn't it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by boann
i mean do you even know what a gay couple goes thru when one is just in the hospital... they aren't even considered members of the family.

But BK thinks they should have to go through that pain since they can't have children... Even though heterosexual couples who can't have children are allowed that right

[Ben Kenobi]

i don't think the govt should set up what rules for morality.

Government does this all the time. Laws have no other purpose but to establish what conduct will or will not be accepted.

Why have laws against murder?

[boann]

laws that prevent people from killing each other are not the same as dictating how a person expresses love or who they want to love.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

Actually, I think a sick man should be able to be seen by anyone he gives permission.

What a radical concept.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ming:

Actually, I think a sick man should be able to be seen by anyone he gives permission.

What a radical concept.

Fair enough... but you still continue to use the no children argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, ignoring the fact that that same right is given to heterosexual couples who can't or won't have children.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So? Do any of the places that allow polygamy allow also for homosexual marriage?

No. They are real traditional, not fake traditional.

Then it isn't traditional to evolve the term. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not the one arguing about 'traditional' I am the one poinitng out that this 'traditional marruage spoken about is not that traditional at all.

So this is a definition of marriage, you would support, GePap?

One that is consistent and does not descriminate.

Does the state, in fact, say such a thing? I don't see love anywhere in the requirements, just one man and one woman.

If the point of marriage is to procrate-there are other possible mating strategies to be used (hence polygamy, polyandry). If you start saying "one man, one woman", you have to give further reasoning for the limited choices.

[MrFun]

Wow -- I think we got Bennie nailed.