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

[DanS]

As far as I know, very few protestant denominations recognize marriage as a sacrament. For all intents and purposes, civil marriage is separate from religion, besides the ceremony itself.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
As far as I know, very few protestant denominations recognize marriage as a sacrament.

But they still see it as holy. If they come up with their own damn terminology, I will use it (damned anti-papist weirdos!)

[DanS]

Well, religion doesn't bother to get involved in a divorce of a civil marriage. I guess marriage is holier sometimes than others.

[DanS]

MrFun: A quick google shows that in 1955 according to Gallup, after school desegration was ordered by the courts, 72% in East favored desegregation, 61% in the Midwest, 77% in the West, 20% in the South. So overall, that's a solid majority for one part of desegregation and reflects a judicial affirmation of the majority view over the minority view.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ming
They get dragged behind the back of pick up trucks...

Nope, that was one of the black folks that also supposedly have equal rights in the U.S. We get pistol-whipped and tied to fence post to die of exposure in the middle of nowhere.

ANYhoo, to Gavin Newcom. A rising star in CA politics if there ever was one. If the people of SF want to recognize gay marriage, don't they have the right? Doesn't hurt nobody anywhere else...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nope, that was one of the black folks that also supposedly have equal rights in the U.S. We get pistol-whipped and tied to fence post to die of exposure in the middle of nowhere.

Sorry... my mistake... but thanks for making the same point I was trying to make.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

But the fact remains, that churches treat them like second class citizens. Nothing you can say changes that fact.

By that definition, the Catholic church treats me as a second class citizen by refusing to allow me access to communion, even though I am a baptised believer.

It is dangerous to apply notions of citizenship to the church. We are all sinners, and in need of repentence before we can enter the church, as members, we need to all repent from our sins.

If homosexuality is a sin, to allow homosexuals to marry, is an endorsement of sin. Therefore, the religion is treating homosexuals with preferential treatment, as opposed to everyone else. They are saying, your sin is okay.

This is the route to destruction, because to endorse one sin, over another, fails to encourage those believers who resist sin, of other forms.

What does having to prove a postitive benefit to "all" mariages have to do with this?

It is the inverse of my question, an unfair question to boot.

As stated before, any marriage that can be effected simply because some gay people that you don't even know get married is truely troubled already and has nothing really to do with gay marriages.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Really, you can do better than this.

What you are saying is that, if a marriage collapses, it is not because of gay people, but because they were troubled before. This neglects to consider the origins of their problems, which may have different causes.

I acknowledge that not all marital difficulties have something to do with homosexuality. What I do not agree with is that changing the definition is not going to affect those marriages already in existence.

Consider the philosophy, that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, as espoused by numerous people in this very thread. What is that going to do for a couple thinking of divorce? Rather than fighting for their marriage, they will be more likely to give up.

Gay people getting married has no effect on regular marriages...

Now, how can you prove this?

Your comments in other threads about lost benefits (which is a crock to begin with) doesn't hold water, because in your own words, it's ok if gays marry, but only if to members of the opposite sex... so the net effect of total marriages would remain the same...

This totally destroys the arguments that gay people will not get married, that they are discriminated against. If they can get married to a partner of the opposite sex, then why do we need gay marriage at all?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

By that definition, the Catholic church treats me as a second class citizen by refusing to allow me access to communion, even though I am a baptised believer.

the church is a private organization. its up to them to make up their own rules. if you feel like a second class citizen then leave.

If homosexuality is a sin, to allow homosexuals to marry, is an endorsement of sin. Therefore, the religion is treating homosexuals with preferential treatment, as opposed to everyone else. They are saying, your sin is okay.

wrong. you cannot be held accountable for the sins of others.

Consider the philosophy, that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, as espoused by numerous people in this very thread. What is that going to do for a couple thinking of divorce? Rather than fighting for their marriage, they will be more likely to give up.

thats not your problem or mine.

Now, how can you prove this?

Now, how can you disprove this?

[Ben Kenobi]

So our government never should have compelled the removal of legal segregation because they would not be able to force everyone to give blacks equal social standing?

You forget the words of Dr. King.

"The law may not be able to make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me."

You are not lynched, you are not beaten, you are not segregated, you are not taught in seperate schools, you are not dragged behind pickup trucks, with the government looking askance, you are equal in every sense of the law.

What you desire, cannot be given, cannot be granted by the government.

also based on social ostracization and sexual degradation of gays.

Ostracised? How can you say you are ostracised, when you have numerous television shows devoted to the glorification of your lifestyle? When people bend over backwards to provide accomodation and acceptance?

Sexual degredation? Are gays being raped?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This totally destroys the arguments that gay people will not get married, that they are discriminated against. If they can get married to a partner of the opposite sex, then why do we need gay marriage at all?

Twice I posted responses to this nonsense argument that you ignored. The last time here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106991&perpage=30&pagenumber=3

By the same logic, it's not against anyone rights to ban interracial marriage, for as I said: Yep, dem negroes have the same raights ta' marry as anyone else, so long as they jes' marry utha negroes.

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims as to the effect of gay marriage based on speculation and bias. Gays aren't under the obligation to prove why their marriages wouldn't hurt, any way--it's the opponent's job to prove they would. Can't prove a negative, after all.

[Ben Kenobi]

LoA:

its up to them to make up their own rules. if you feel like a second class citizen then leave.

Then so it will be for the homosexuals.

wrong. you cannot be held accountable for the sins of others.

You miss the point entirely. The church has a responsibility to care for their flock, to encourage them from sinning.

thats not your problem or mine.

That does not refute the fact that the philosophy of marriage as a contract is corrosive towards marriage in general. Thank you LoA.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ming:
By that definition, the Catholic church treats me as a second class citizen by refusing to allow me access to communion, even though I am a baptised believer.

It is dangerous to apply notions of citizenship to the church. We are all sinners, and in need of repentence before we can enter the church, as members, we need to all repent from our sins.

If homosexuality is a sin, to allow homosexuals to marry, is an endorsement of sin. Therefore, the religion is treating homosexuals with preferential treatment, as opposed to everyone else. They are saying, your sin is okay.

This is the route to destruction, because to endorse one sin, over another, fails to encourage those believers who resist sin, of other forms.

A lot of words that don't change the fact that they are treated like second class citizens. While you may be able to justify it in your mind, it doesn't change the fact.

It is the inverse of my question, an unfair question to boot.

Well... nice attempt at not answering the quesiton. The issue for you has always been some strange notion that allowing gays to marry would hurt straight married couples... something you have offered no proof on.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Really, you can do better than this.

I see... no real answer. Just another side step on your part.

What you are saying is that, if a marriage collapses, it is not because of gay people, but because they were troubled before. This neglects to consider the origins of their problems, which may have different causes.

No... I'm asking you to prove how to unkown gay people getting married can break up a straight marriage. Your whole line is that changing the definition will cause problems for straight married couples... and I again ASK HOW! Problems in marriages are between the couple, not from people who they don't even know.

I acknowledge that not all marital difficulties have something to do with homosexuality.

That's a start... but prove where it HAS ANYTHING to do with other peoples marital difficulties... The simple fact is, it doesn't. find me one couple that broke up and said allowing gays to get married forced them to break up. Good luck...

Consider the philosophy, that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, as espoused by numerous people in this very thread. What is that going to do for a couple thinking of divorce? Rather than fighting for their marriage, they will be more likely to give up.

People will give up because they are weak or no longer see the need to fight... not because unkown gays are allowed to get married.

Now, how can you prove this?

You can't prove a word you are saying either... I'm using simple logic, which you seem to be ignoring. Again, find a couple that claims they are divorced because gays are allowed to get married... you can't. So that's more proof than you have.

This totally destroys the arguments that gay people will not get married, that they are discriminated against. If they can get married to a partner of the opposite sex, then why do we need gay marriage at all?

Because it's a matter of their choice. Again, you have stated that you hope gay people get married to members of the opposite sex... but not to members of the same sex... which just shows that you are discriminating against them and trying to cram your own morality down their throats... let them become partners with people of their choice... not yours. How would you feel if your neighboor was telling you who you could or could not make love to....

[Ben Kenobi]

By the same logic, it's not against anyone rights to ban interracial marriage, for as I said: Yep, dem negroes have the same raights ta' marry as anyone else, so long as they jes' marry utha negroes.

And I refuted this argument by the argument that men and women are not interchangeable within the context of marriage. It makes no difference to a marriage, if you put a black woman in place of a white woman, where you have a very concrete difference between a man and a woman.

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims as to the effect of gay marriage based on speculation and bias.

Concept of marriage as a contract is corrosive to marriage in general. Deal with this argument.

Secondly, we could go on this argument forever. You cannot show any intrinsic benefits to society from gay marriage, therefore, there is no reason to extend benefits to their relationships.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Then so it will be for the homosexuals.

thats right. if the church wants to treat them that way its fine. but the state has to recognize them are normal class citizens because the state isnt a private entity.

You miss the point entirely. The church has a responsibility to care for their flock, to encourage them from sinning.

when you mean flock, do you mean everyone, or just members of their church.

That does not refute the fact that the philosophy of marriage as a contract is corrosive towards marriage in general. Thank you LoA.

thats because i dont know what the effect on marriage in general is. and frankly, it doesnt matter. what matters is you, and your marriage, not someone else.

[Arrian]

That does not refute the fact that the philosophy of marriage as a contract is corrosive towards marriage in general.

Marriage has always been a contract, so I guess it's been ****ed up since the beginning. It's changed a bit over time here in the West, obviously, what with women no longer being viewed as property and all.

Personally, probably since I'm not gay, I don't care what it's called, so long as people are not denied rights under the law based upon religious dogma. Therefore, calling it "civil union" and giving it the same legal rights as marriage is fine by me. But I think I can understand why gay people might not be satisfied with that.

-Arrian