Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I dispute that sexual preferences are fixed. People can and do change.

And there's not one shred of scientific evidence to support this assertion. Overwhelming numbers of psychologists, psychiatrists, medical professionals, behaviorialists, etc. all agree that sexual preference is not something one can change.

And this contradicts what you've said before, when it was pointed out to you that statistically almost all homosexuals who underwent "conversion" reverted back to engaging in homosexual behavior. Your response to that was that of course their desires wouldn't change, they'd just be repressing them. So have you changed your story yet again?

[Wezil]

Ming - I don't propose 'handing off' power to religions. Hell, as an atheist the last thing I want is for organised religion to have more power! In fact I support 'marriage' being ENTIRELY religious symbolism.

What I hear from the gay lobby is they want EQUAL (not separate and equal). This implies all the legal rights of any other 'couple'. A civil union requirement for ALL does this. This is not separate but equal but THE SAME. Whether your union is blessed in a Catholic Church, mosque, or local beer hall makes no difference to the civil legal rights. See? Otherwise we run the risk of forcing institutions to bless unions they disapprove of.

Molly - Read the briefs. Well written and argued but the source problem remains. Also, I obviously can't access the source material to see if I interpret the data the same way. Any chance you can direct me to the actual decisions made by the courts these briefs were presented to? Did the courts buy the arguments? What were the decisions?

edit: typos

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wezil
Ming - I don't propose 'handing off' power to religions. Hell, as an atheist the last thing I want is for organised religion to have more power! In fact I support 'marriage' being ENTIRELY religious symbolism.

Uhhhh... you support "marriage" being entirely religious, but you aren't proposing "handing off" power to religions. Being married means something to a lot of people. The term itself carries powerful meaning... and not just to religious people. Again, why should ONLY religions have the power to marry people... There are many people (hetrosexuals and homosexuals) who want nothing to do with religion... so why should they settle for "civil union".

Governments (society) have been performing marriages for a long time. Why should that power be taken away and handed over exclusively to a bunch of religions who can't even agree on the subject. If people want to go to a religion and have their marriage blessed in the eyes of their god... fine... But many people just want to get married and want nothing to do with god. Why should the government FORCE people to go to religion to get married.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So my question to you, did the availability of divorce, in any way contribute to the breakup of their marriage?

Divorce gave them an out... the marriage was breaking up anyway. Maybe you believe that people should stay in hopeless and dead relationships... I don't.

Yes, the difficulties are there, but does it make sense to say that all divorces only happen because of the difficulties in the marriages?

Yes... all divorces happen BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES... People don't get divorced when there are no difficulities.
You seem to be indicating that people get divorced simply because the option is there... NO... people get divorced because they see no other option.

Many people stay in marriage through the rocky times. Heck, I would think those who stay learn how to work with these problems.

When people see hope... they can stick it out. And they do come out stronger for it. But many relationships have NO HOPE. And it's a good thing divorce gives them an option.

Right. So all divorces break up unloving relationships. People are resourceful, when they really want to be, and can be very quick to give up, when they are not. They see divorce, and they think, what would be easier? Sticking together and patching things up, or to just start over?

You seem to be implying that divorce is easy... and many people with minor problems do it instead of trying to work things out. Divorce is NOT an easy decision to make... it is the last resort, not the first.

One thing I've thought about, it may seem silly, but why would married people, if the definition changes, see marriage as monogamous? It's just about the love, not the sex.

Again... you seem to be implying that letting gays get married will make people change their own relationships.
ONE LAST TIME... ANYBODY THAT CHANGES THEIR OWN RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING, PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE MARRIED ANYWAY.

Well, I consider everyone to be sinners. So that is not a good argument, Ming.

But you seem to say that some discrimination is good... as long is against people who's lifestyle you disagree with... What if religions were discriminated against... would you then say that some discrimiation is good if it was aimed at you? I don't think so

What about bachelors? If we give financial benefits to married couples, why should they not also receive the benefits? After all, we can't discriminate against them for choosing not to have children.

Nothing is stopping them from being married. As you say, marriage brings benefits to society. Stable relationships make for happier and better people. You just don't want to give gays that right. Remember, stable relationships are good for EVERYBODY, not just people of your faith and beliefs.

Family structure directly influences the income of the various family systems in which American children are being raised. Traditional nuclear families enjoy a median income of $48,000. Stepfamilies average an income of $45,900. Cohabiting couples subsist on a common annual wealth of $25,000. Divorced/Separated families live on approximately $18, 500 a year. Finally, never-married, single families exist on an annual income of $15,000

And the point of all of this?
Basically... it proves that being married is a good thing.
What does this have to do with allowing gays to get married.

But if you think these numbers mean something... you have proved yourself wrong with these figures. Cohabiting couples have less income. And you want gays to continue cohabiting and not get married... hurting the family structure. You should be screaming for them to get married to help the family... why aren't you

So you may have posted a lot of words... but as usual, you raise no logical argument, or provide any support for your position

[Wezil]

Ming - Last try. I'm taking power AWAY FROM religion. 'Marriage' will have ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL EFFECT. Civil unions, of which ALL may avail themselves is the only legally binding contract here. If this is not 'equal' enough then I can only assume that what you are really pushing for is symbolic recognition from groups (not the State) that won't/can't accept gay relationships. Symbolic or not, to hell with their beliefs.

[Ming]

But it's not equal... the term MARRIAGE has powerful meaning. You are denying non religious people the right to get married. You are GIVING religions power, not taking it away. I am not pushing for symbolic recognition from groups other than the state. They already have that right and power. I don't want a matter of a lack of religious beliefs to keep a couple from getting married.

Again.. since you seem to be missing my point... Governments have been performing marriages for ages and so have religions... I don't want the exclusive power to perform marriages in only the hands of religion... since not all people believe. You want to give them that exclusive power... so you aren't taking power away from them at all.

[Wezil]

Denying non-religious.... WTF?

Tell me.....What power am I giving them? I'm atheist, therefore my rights are abbrogated b/c the Catholic Church won't marry me?

You want more than you are being honest about.

[Kuciwalker]

Ming - marriage may have a powerful SOCIAL meaning, but the government is completely blind to it.

[Wezil]

Btw, it may surprise you to know that there are churches out there NOW that will 'marry' gay couples.

[Wezil]

Gay Couple:

Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Straight Couple:

Step 1: Go church of their choice - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Please tell me where the inequalities are in this arrangement?

edit -

Atheist Couples:

Step 1: Skip as unnecessary
Step 2: Go to government office for legal Civil Union.
Step 3: Honeymoon

[Kuciwalker]

In fact, since "married" would have no legal meaning, it would simply be a little certificate or something from a church, all that matters is:

1: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union.

Which is the same for everyone.

[Ming]

No it's not the same. You are both giving the "exclusive" right to perform "marriages" over to religion. Why should non religious people not be allowed to be "married". You are both ignoring the important significance of the term "married".

Right now... the government does perform marriages, and has had that power for ages... and you want to take that right away and let them perform "civil unions" while allowing religions to be the only groups that can actually perform a marriage.

So no... it's NOT the same for everybody... non religious people (and not just gays) are being discriminated against. They would have to "settle" for a civil union. Why should they?

[Kuciwalker]

To the government, there IS no significance to the term "married", beyond a certain set of rights and privileges. Should the government also baptise people? As it is, only Christians can be baptised.

[Elok]

Who says you have to be married by a religion? If you really want to be married, I don't suggest making that exclusive to a religious group, only exclusive of the government. I have nothing against a "secular union society," or some such, marrying atheists off. I do have a problem with religious veneration being given to the government equivalent. Which is why I say they should have the power to confer legal rights, and leave the symbolism up to the people receiving those rights. It's not like we're setting up a dichotomy of "worships a god" vs. "respects the government."

[Wezil]

Cut and paste and wait for an answer....

Gay Couple:

Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Straight Couple:

Step 1: Go church of their choice - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Please tell me where the inequalities are in this arrangement?