City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If you want to deal with math though, answer me this. Does the value of the number "5" somehow change if I call it "go" instead of "five"? I would submit that the value of the number would be equal in both cases, despite the change in nomenclature.

It's more than a change in nomenclature.

They are very different by definition, where marriages are a more restricted form. It's like real versus whole numbers.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

How can something be equal if it is different?

Just because things are different does not automatically make them unequal.

I recall how segregationist justified their position on the doctrine, "separate but equal" -- is this how you justify your position?

[Drake Tungsten]

I recall how segregationist justified their position on the doctrine, "separate but equal" -- is this how you justify your position?

Yes. I'm not going to let a strained comparison to segregationists scare me away from what I view as the most pragmatic course of action. There's no sense in overthrowing the definition of marriage when you can give homosexuals equal rights with a different form of union.

[MrFun]

Ok, I can accept that as a legitimate position -- even if I disagree with it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yes. I'm not going to let a strained comparison to segregationists scare me away from what I view as the most pragmatic course of action. There's no sense in overthrowing the definition of marriage when you can give homosexuals equal rights with a different form of union.

So you find it acceptable that a religious doctrine is unabashedly backed by the government?

[DanS]

The question that I have is whether gays value social acceptance or legal recognition more. The tactics to achieve each of these sometimes work against the other.

[Drake Tungsten]

So you find it acceptable that a religious doctrine is unabashedly backed by the government?

It's not religious doctrine; it's a customary definition of marriage that has been in place for generations.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's not based on religious doctrine; it's based on a customary definition of marriage that has been in place for generations.

It is most certainly based on a religious doctrine, as its supporters frequently prove with their references to the bible. It's also extremely likely that if a person opposes gay marriages, they are religious. It's also apparent to anyone with half a clue that the reason it's "customary" is because the US is, by and large, a Christian nation with Christian customs. A "been in place for generation" is no excuse for non-action, if it was we'd never change a thing. We'd still have slavery. Women could not vote...

[Drake Tungsten]

It's also apparent to anyone with half a clue that the reason it's "customary" is because the US is, by and large, a Christian nation with Christian customs.

What's your point? The fact that the current societal definition of marriage is rooted in Judeo-Christian moral thought (as are many other aspects of American society) does not make it a "religious doctrine" anymore than proscriptions against murder can be viewed as some sort of Christian conspiracy.

A "been in place for generation" is no excuse for non-action,

I never said it was. It does explain why large sections of the American populace are opposed to gay marriage, however, an opposition that could turn ugly if social change is carried out via judicial fiat as opposed to more democratic measures.

[DanS]

Asher, that's not true. Religion has dressed itself up with marriage, but the institution itself has been around for thousands of years in societies very far removed from judaism and christianity.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DanS
Asher, that's not true. Religion has dressed itself up with marriage, but the institution itself has been around for thousands of years in societies very far removed from judaism and christianity.

Thanks for proving my point -- religions were the ones that defined it between man and woman.

[DanS]

As far as I know, marriage in the Western World is an Ancient Greco-Roman institution. Perhaps it even goes further back. I don't remember that religion was particularly involved. Of course, in the US, religion has been decreasingly involved in sanctioning marriages.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

the bible says a man cant lie with a man the way he lies with a woman. what about woman on woman?

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm pretty sure God approves of that. He is a man, after all.

[Ben Kenobi]

marriage is a contract between individuals, or individuals and their church.

LoA:

Then why does the state restrict people from marrying two others at once? Why have any state involvement at all?

Finally, why should the state provide benefits, if this is merely a private contract?