Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

And the government does not do the latter. They can have a ceremony, slip a ring on their finger, call it a marriage, but it will not be recognised by the state as such.

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.

In giving the right to some, others also have the right. Consider this. Suppose we did say that one had to express an intention to have children in order to get married. What will happen? Everyone who gets married will 'express the intention.'

In short, with marriage as it stands, it is impossible to enforce such a restriction. However, it is possible to limit marriage to those relationships likely to produce children, and this we find between a man and a woman, and do not find between two men or two women.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
Wow -- I think we got Bennie nailed.

nahhh... he will just continue to ignore the subject of heterosexual couples who can't have kids or won't and know it before they get married. To him, they should be allowed to get married, but that gays can't since they can't have children.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Suppose we did say that one had to express an intention to have children in order to get married. What will happen? Everyone who gets married will 'express the intention.'

In short, with marriage as it stands, it is impossible to enforce such a restriction. However, it is possible to limit marriage to those relationships likely to produce children, and this we find between a man and a woman, and do not find between two men or two women.

We can force engaged couples to get pregnant so they can't get around falsely expressing intent, when they actually marry.

Oh wait -- no, because that would mean they would be engaging in immoral premarital sex.

[MrFun]

editted

[MrFun]

editted

[MrFun]

editted

[MrFun]

WTF happened!?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In short, with marriage as it stands, it is impossible to enforce such a restriction. However, it is possible to limit marriage to those relationships likely to produce children, and this we find between a man and a woman, and do not find between two men or two women.

Oh come on... if children is the SOLE reason for you not allowing marriage between gay couples, straight people should be forced to prove they can have children... a simple test will prove it. But you don't advocate that all...

Just admit your anti gay marriage stance is purely for religious reasons and have nothing to do with logic... since you still haven't come up with one logical reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

[Ben Kenobi]

if children is the SOLE reason

First, I do think love and desire to have children need to both be there in marriage.

Secondly,

a simple test will prove it.

I just argued why a test would not work.

Surely you aren't THAT naive, Ming.

You can rant about 'illogical, etc.' but that does not refute the arguements I have made.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I just argued why a test would not work.

Surely you aren't THAT naive, Ming.

You can rant about 'illogical, etc.' but that does not refute the arguements I have made.

You just argued why a test wouldn't work for those who won't attempt to have childredn. Your argument doesn't work for those who phyiscally can't. A test will prove that.

So you either must argue that couples MUST be tested, and if they can't, they aren't allowed to get married... or just give up on using this as a defense for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

[Ben Kenobi]

Eh,we get your point Mr. Fun.

[MrFun]

The server is ****ed up.

[MrFun]

The server is ****ed up.

[Ned]

If Gays make marriage legal, religions will invent a new word for it.

[Mercator]

It wasn't particularly separation of religion and state I was hinting at, even though that is a part of it, but rather the origins and evolution of religion. Islam in my examples, but I think it applies equally to Christianity.

You second quote is very applicable, and I think it contrasts sharply with what you say:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are different ways, to express faith, but the essential doctrine will remain the same.

You may experience it as such, but I think Christianity suffers from the same problem Islam does. The biggest difference is that most Christian states are secular, while most Islamic states aren't.

Some of the most basic ideas of a religion will inevitably remain the same, but for the most part it should (and has) adapt to the ever-changing society it is a part of.

Source: http://www.ijtihad.org/ideas.htm
These streams of contingent ideas continued to flow and enrich not only the Islamic World but also the entire human civilization. Every new stream of ideas added a newer, deeper and richer dimension to the Islamic world. In its time it manifested the zenith of human achievements in both corporeal as well as spiritual sense. This great epoch in human history was essentially the outcome of the human mind processing the pure idea of Islam.

Today, the Islamic Ummah is in disarray. It has not only lost its past glory, but has also lost the capacity to comprehend the virtues and the causes of its past glory.

From their original inspiring creative melting pot of ideas Judaism/Christianity/Islam, perhaps inevitably all religions (ideologies/philosophies), turn into a stagnant quagmire of dogmas.

But instead of adapting to new situations, creating, religion seems to hark back to the past and bring up a Bible-quote, so to speak.

To condense it down to one sentence: I don't understand how rigidly sticking to a definition of marriage or rejecting homosexuality, whatever, is in line with ancient traditions of religion such as freedom of though, creativity and self-determination.

In our modern, Western, society homosexuality has taken its place and it is finally being accepted. How then can you defend attacking it?