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

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not. Nor do I hold it against you, your position on these matters. Nor do I condemn you for betraying your religion, as you seem quite eager to do for me.

Condemn you.... Huh... I will restate it again... your WHOLE problem with gays marriages is the fact that your religion (and I don't care what it is) is anti gay. You have stated in tons of threads that gay marriages will effect traditional marriages and have an impract on them... And I'm only saying that that argument is an empty one... and that if married couples let what other people do effect their lives, they shouldn't be married, because they dont' really love each other if something like that would change their relationships.

I don't think I've ever brought your religion into these arguments, while everytime you bring in mine.

And I will continue to since you still haven't come up with a single logical argument against gay marriages except for lame it will effect traditional marriages or other such nonsense that you offer no support for. Your anti gay marriage bias is purely religious based, and therefor the real issue. And I have stated a million times in the past... NO PROBLEM. Just admit it... and stop raising arguments that make no sense. At least be truthful instead of lamely trying to justify it some other way... which you have failed to do, over and over again.

Not really my point. I don't EVER say that your marriage will fall apart, or even the one that I hope to have as a result of these changes. Rather, I have been asking for a good reason put forth to allow gay marriage.

No... you never said my marrriage... but you have stated repeatedly that it will have an effect on tradtional marriages... and I continue to respond... NO WAY, not if it is a solid marriage. You seem to imply that it will cause breakups and problems in other peoples marriages...

One more time... a good reason.... REMOVE DISCRIMINATION... PROVIDE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY...
To give EVERYBODY the RIGHT to make a commitment to spend their lives together and have the state award them the same rights as any other couple. Marriage is NOT something soley restricted to churches and religion... and again.... not all religions can agree on this subject.

And why should I only be able to speak out on issues that can be shown to have a direct effect on me? Moral issues are moral issues.

FINE... no problem... but at least be honest and state the real reasons you are against it instead of the lame not supported it will effect regular marriages, or the other garbarge points you bring up. I have no problem with you saying gay relationships are against your religion... FINE (we all know it anyway it) and simply state that they shouldn't be allowed because you don't believe in them... While I don't know or care what religion you actually are... i'm sure honesty is probably a key law

He also says to spread his Gospel. Christians are supposed to live out their life in Christ, and part of mine means that I stand up for what I believe to be right.

Fine... STAND UP FOR IT... state your HONEST VIEWs... and don't continue to hide behind falsehoods... But again... leave the judging up to our Lord

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom



So am I, Funny bunny.

So's the gay priest and his bishop I knew (not in the kenobist fashion of 'knew').

My family is Catholic too -- I was joking with my "shocked" reaction.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I don't think I've ever brought your religion into these arguments, while everytime you bring in mine.

How fair is that?

If you're going to use your religious/theological rationale for your homophobia, of course other people will refute your arguments using your religious/theological methods because . . . . . . that is what you used.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

leave the judging up to our Lord

Actually, you are wrong on that... from Paul, 1st Corinthians.

1 Cor 5:9-12

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[1]


So if you wish to make your religion an issue, then I can judge you by the conduct you ought to uphold.

Mr. Fun:

If you're going to use your religious/theological rationale

Have I been using religious/theological rationale for my position?

[Ben Kenobi]

And I'm only saying that that argument is an empty one... and that if married couples let what other people do effect their lives, they shouldn't be married, because they dont' really love each other if something like that would change their relationships.

So all those people who got divorced when the divorce law changed ought not to have been married, because they saw their own marriage in a new light, when they had another option?

Should all those who have gotten divorced not been married in the first place? That's 50% of marriages, Ming.

I think all marriages, to some degree are influenced by the actions of those around them. We cannot get away from that.

REMOVE DISCRIMINATION... PROVIDE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY...

Again, some forms of discrimination are good. I would argue that this is one of them, because society derives many benefits from a marriage between a man and a woman, not only in children, but also between the spouses.

Marriage is NOT something soley restricted to churches and religion

Agreed. I argue from the benefits to society, not from religious teachings.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

...or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.


Have I been using religious/theological rationale for my position?

So you don't know any overweight people? No fat friends? Noone who gets a little tipsy at Christmas?

Et cetera, et cetera....

But didn't you say in another thread you weren't meant to judge people 'spiritually' when I brought up the 'let he who is without sin' bit of Christian moral relativism?

In which case, what on earth are you doing opposing civil (non spiritual/religious marriages) for gay men and lesbians?

'Render unto Caesar'- presumably, unless you the Christian, disagree with it, in which case cherry pick bits of bible to use as your rationale for disagreeing.

More to the point- how can you live in a country whose head of state is a woman, and belong to a party that might elect a woman as its head?

'Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.'

I Timothy, 2:12

[Arrian]

Agreed. I argue from the benefits to society, not from religious teachings.

So you say. But honestly, I (and, it appears, Ming) don't believe you. Your arguments re: social benifit are a poorly conceived and unsubstantiated* veil for your real reason for your position: that your religion tells you gay sex is immoral.

* What particular benifit does society derive from a male-female marriage that it does not from a male-male or female-female union? Children? Sure, but if the idea is to provide benifits to parents, the benifits should be tied to having children, not just getting married. Not to mention that there are lots of children that need adoption, so the inability of gay couples to actually produce children doesn't bother me. FURTHER, and perhaps most importantly, surely you understand that a gay person is not going to produce children ANYWAY. Having a law against gay marriage in no way effects the birthrate. I'd say that dispenses with the children angle.

Ok, moving on, what other benifits does society get from a hetro marriage that it doesn't from homo marriage? I don't see any in particular.

Your position is founded on your religion, Ben. Covering it up by trying to argue this "benifit to society" angle isn't fooling anyone.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So all those people who got divorced when the divorce law changed ought not to have been married, because they saw their own marriage in a new light, when they had another option?

YEP... they obviously didn't belong married. It's good that divorce gave them the option to get out of an unloving and bad relationship.

Should all those who have gotten divorced not been married in the first place? That's 50% of marriages, Ming.

Yep... they obviously didn't belong married. It's good that divorce gave them the option to get out of an unloving and bad relationship.

I think all marriages, to some degree are influenced by the actions of those around them. We cannot get away from that.

Some degree... yes. But if that fact that gays can get married makes you totally rethink your marriage... than you probably shouldn't be married.

Again, some forms of discrimination are good. I would argue that this is one of them, because society derives many benefits from a marriage between a man and a woman, not only in children, but also between the spouses.

yep... I cans see how you would see discrimation against people you consider sinners good I would argue that society derives many benefits from any GOOD marriage... because you have happier and more stable people. As far as you bringing children up again... don't do so again until you start advocating that ALL people that aren't planning to have children should be discriminated against as well

Agreed. I argue from the benefits to society, not from religious teachings.

yet you have been unable to quantify a single benefit.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


I wouldn't.
There was a period in American history where another class of citizens was opressed, or hated, by the American people....If it had been a states rights issue then, they would still be opressed

Okay... so now we're bringing up slavery? Give me a break! Federalism is not some optional thing that decide to use and not to use when we feel like it, it's something that needs to be protected or else the national government will begin dictating too many things to localities when the national government doesn't realize it can't make blanketed statements.

If Texas wants to make an anti-gay-marriage law, let them, then have California, who doesn't mind, add to its civil unions laws and let them have what they want. The Civil Rights issues due to the Civil War Amendments, should have been taken care of by the courts long before they were, but forcing the regions from the national level like what happened didn't make any of the resentment go away, it only made it worse, IMHO.

I'm still wondering where the No Gay Marriage Act or whatever it is can be passed by Congress... what power are they saying it's tied to? Commerce?



You know the conversation has degenerated when Bibilcal Scriptures are starting to be referenced. When will people realize they aren't supposed to be taken literally?

Originally posted by Ming

YEP... they obviously didn't belong married. It's good that divorce gave them the option to get out of an unloving and bad relationship.

Wouldn't it have been better if they'd not gotten married at all? I'd rather see a lot more hoops for everybody to jump through to get married than for just gays to have to balance 'balls' on their heads. (Pun intended. )

The only form of discrimination that is good is the economic discrimination that states lets price control demand so people only get what they need. (Thus why some things most certainly need to be re-rationed such as social health insurance in the US.)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
You know the conversation has degenerated when Bibilcal Scriptures are starting to be referenced. When will people realize they aren't supposed to be taken literally?

Isn't 'people' a plural noun? You should try a singular then: we only have one fundamentalist believeing in the literal quotation of scripture (and dozens of anti-fundies who enjoy quoting scripture for the sake of poking the fundie )

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Che & Kontiki?

Then how do you explain society's interest in the preservation of marriage?

That's not what you asked. You asked if there is a benefit to keeping marriages between one man and one women. If you want to ask if society benefits from marriage in general, then my answer would change. But you didn't ask that.

As for my rationale, I laid it out clearly in another thread which you responded to, so you've acknowledged (granted, not necessarily agreed with) it. Ming and Arrian basically covered it off in this thread anyway. Bottom line - your position would only make sense if it were a zero sum game. If making gay marriages legal meant taking some of the benefits away from straight marriage, you'd have something to argue. But it doesn't, so you don't.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor

...for the sake of poking the fundie )

Now there's an unpleasant image.

Amish Porn- it's the one involving farm implements and machinery, and where the models put on more clothes before they have sex.

In the dark.

[Ned]

Just to test the anti-Ben "consensus" which seems to endorse the view that marriage and discrimination in favor of man-woman childrearing are separate issues, how would you feel about a child deduction or credit that could only be taken by a man and a woman filing a joint tax return?

[Arrian]

Ned,

You mean instead of whatever benifits married people get now, replace it with a child deduction credit?

Yes, I would be for that, although I think I'd like to see it capped at a certain number of children. Say... 3 or 4. I'm not sure about that last bit at all, though.

-Arrian

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Isn't 'people' a plural noun? You should try a singular then: we only have one fundamentalist believeing in the literal quotation of scripture (and dozens of anti-fundies who enjoy quoting scripture for the sake of poking the fundie )

Here we only have one, but you wouldn't believe how many there were in the town I graduated HS from.

Just to test the anti-Ben "consensus" which seems to endorse the view that marriage and discrimination in favor of man-woman childrearing are separate issues, how would you feel about a child deduction or credit that could only be taken by a man and a woman filing a joint tax return?

After watching my wife recover from a c-section and then vaginal birth I would say that that pain certainly is enough to reward a man-woman couple such.

The woman alone could also do it, while two men who have adopted a child can still claim the child as a dependent but have not gone through the physical stress and risked their lives in giving birth to said child.

Now a lesbian couple I could see also being allowed to have such a credit. (Here I'm thinking EIC, which, if I was a single father, I would still get, but if two gay men didn't earn enough, they shouldn't have been able to have adopted the child in the first place due to financial restrictions.)