Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[MrBaggins]

No but cultures both definitely had marriage, prior to christianity... for example... and subsequent societies based many of their concepts on the Hellenic world. Hence, monotheistic religions (or religions in general, FWIW) certainly didn't invent or hold patent to marriage.

As for the word... most Christians who married way back when didn't speak English either. The etymology of marriage would be Anglo-French... essentially deriving Nordic and (surprise, surprise) Greek roots.

Again, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Ming]

Yeah... while marriages are now "blessed" in the eyes of God by Religious ceremonies... the concept of marriage is not the sole exclusive property of religions... Heck, one could argue that it's really the property of the Military since Ship Captains can perform such cerimonies....

So for one or more religions to attempt to lay claims on the word marriage, and demand exclusive rights to determine what is and what isn't.... is really kind of silly.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, you seem to be arguing now against marriage per se which is inconsistent with an argument that we should allow gay marriages. You do this by saying that any legally imposed obligations on a domestic partner to stay in the relationship is disfavored. However, that is exactly what marriage brings with it. Today, gay and lesbian couples can split with ease with virtually no lingering obligations to their partner. This never happens with "the divorces" because there are continuing obligations of support and there are division of property issues to be considered. There may be also issues involving custody of children.

The battle for gay marriages is not only a battle of rights. There are significant obligations involved in marriages that tend to keep couples together because the cost of separation is so high.

[MrFun]

Just as the ideology of "separate spheres" was an idealization of gender relations in the 19th century, rather than being reality, so is the ideology of "sanctity of marriage" is today, a heterosexist, conservative idealization of marriage, rather than being reality.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
*SNIP*
Today, gay and lesbian couples can split with ease with virtually no lingering obligations to their partner.
*SNIP*

Thats a strawman argument.

If the gay and lesbian couples were married, then they'd, by definition have shared property, and more financial obligations and motives to stay together (or actually negative conotations when they separated.) There'd also be more basis for them becoming adoptive parents, producing the same dilemnas for custody. Its also been argued that there'd be less stress associated with negative stigma.

You can't compare symptoms of two different scenario's if you're using radically different rules to govern both, and then pawn that off as a comparitive situation.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
At least I haven´t seen them speaking openly against a Civil Union (which would grant them the full Rights of a Marriage).

So we should ask this Question once again to all Homosexual and also to all religious people:

[snip]

So, if the gay members of Apolyton don´t answer this Question, you could be right with your statement.

Well, it looks like the gay posters here don't like this idea, so it seems that I was right after all.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Well, it looks like the gay posters here don't like this idea, so it seems that I was right after all.

I specifically addressed this point two pages ago. You seem to have ignored it.

[Arrian]

The reason I had shifted my position to essentially match Rogans (that is if I understand him correctly: civil unions for all under the State, leave "marriage" for churches and other private organizations, with no added legal significance attached to it) was simple appeasement: hoping it would satisfy the religionistas while providing equal rights for all under the law.

If that won't satisfy them (or at least the majority of them), nevermind, GAY MARRIAGE NOW!

-Arrian

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ming
So for one or more religions to attempt to lay claims on the word marriage, and demand exclusive rights to determine what is and what isn't.... is really kind of silly.

I think demanding "exclusive rights" to have my own opinion is fair enough. Why do you want to remove that? Isn't that attitude a little bit facist?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I think demanding "exclusive rights" to have my own opinion is fair enough.

But what does "owning your opinion" have to do with forbidding any non-religious institutions to perform marriage?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But what does "owning your opinion" have to do with forbidding any non-religious institutions to perform marriage?

Why would you want to forbid non-religious institutions from performing marriages?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Thats a strawman argument.

If the gay and lesbian couples were married, then they'd, by definition have shared property, and more financial obligations and motives to stay together (or actually negative conotations when they separated.) There'd also be more basis for them becoming adoptive parents, producing the same dilemnas for custody. Its also been argued that there'd be less stress associated with negative stigma.

You can't compare symptoms of two different scenario's if you're using radically different rules to govern both, and then pawn that off as a comparitive situation.

Mr.Baggins, just a small point. I agree with you. It is gay marriage mega-advocate Whaleboy who argues against obligations as being conterproductive and destabalizing. He seems to be arguing both for gay marriage and against gay marriage at the same time.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I think demanding "exclusive rights" to have my own opinion is fair enough. Why do you want to remove that? Isn't that attitude a little bit facist?

What you think within your own consciousness is up to you.

"Exclusive rights" in this case were referring to a concept, that of marriage, which as a concept has existed, long before the basis that you've made of a "religious institution"... and long before the creation of the concept of Fascism, for what its worth.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why would you want to forbid non-religious institutions from performing marriages?

I don't. Yo do seem like it however. You don't want the State (the archetype of the non-religious institution) not to perform marriages. I fail to see what this demand has to do with "owning your opinion".

[Ned]

Oh, btw, and this is a little off topic, but I soon think that Muslims will themselves demand the right to have multiple wives consistent with their religion.

How does one argue against this after the gay marriage revolution?