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

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Fez: I believe we are arguing for the same thing...

I guess there's a first for everything

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Fez: I believe we are arguing for the same thing...

I guess there's a first for everything

Well it might have to do with me liking hot guys that influences my opinion in this area.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Well it might have to do with me liking hot guys that influences my opinion in this area.

Yeah, me too









Wait...what?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


Yeah, me too









Wait...what?

Just pulling your strings.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming


First... whether you like it or not... they are involved. And that's a FACT! Governments (or society, because that's all a government really is) has been involved in marriages for a long time. The box has already been opened. And what I don't like is the fact that some want to take that power away and hand it off to religion.

Ming, the government ought to bug out completely. Assuming we recognize gay marriage, marriage is a contract between two people who make a commitment to one another. The state should lay down the legal consequences of such a contract, but otherwise should stay out of deciding who or whom should be married.

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker
I think what Elok says makes a lot of sense. You ARE allowing "gay marriage" as it is meant by it's proponents, but that meaning happens to be "a certain legal contract between two people and the state that grants rights a, b, and c". Because the term "marriage" has historically referred to a religious sacrement, Elok wants to divorce () that term from that contract, and rather call that contract a "civil union".

Historically, the word marriage had not been linked to exclusively to religious ceremonies in the West.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Then I'll say the same thing about the church. Maybe civil marriage should be done by a private civil insitution?

Anyone can perform ceremonies. The essence of a marriage is a contract that is bilateral in nature. A third party with some power is not necessary to form a marriage.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
The power to govern marraige should be governed by religion. That's part of the reason that the Federal Government should recognize Civil Unions. Civil Unions are non-religious. They can and should be initiated by religions when called for by members of that faith. However, Civil Unions should carry the weight of federal benefits, and marraiges should be strictly limited to the religion in which they are performed. If I want to be married, I should have the ability to do that in my faith; the benefits I receive from that marraige should also be given if a person chooses to marry without any faith. It just makes sense.

Bogus. We should not, repeat NOT establish separate but equal. All contracts of marriage are marriages regardless of how made or how soleminized. The Mass. Sup. court has already ruled that separate is not equal in this realm. They are right.

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

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?

The distinction is made between those who are inside the church, and those who are outside. If you have someone who claims to be a part of the church, who actively opposes the teachings of the church, then that is a much different case from the one who is outside of the church who is a sinner. For if Christians were to shun all sinners, they would never bring anyone to Christ.

You see that in my quote. God will judge those outside, we are only to judge those inside the church.

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

For civil affairs, and civil matters. I believe this policy to be detrimental to society.

'Render unto Caesar'

But is that not precisely the question? Is marriage within the realm of the state to determine and define?

cherry pick bits of bible to use as your rationale for disagreeing.

I think most would reject your characterisation of my use of the bible

[quote]
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?
[quote]

'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

Refers to whether or not women ought to preach and be pastors inside the church. This has nothing to do with their role outside.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you say. But honestly, I (and, it appears, Ming) don't believe you.

If I believed that it ought to be solely a religious matter, why don't I just say, go ahead, get married. It won't matter to the rest of us, whatever you call your 'marriage'.

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.

Again, I will reiterate. One argument that I had after I became Christian is that gay marriage reduced sin, and was therefore moral. It took some secular arguments, in that sexual preference is not fixed that I changed my position on gay marriage.

Children? Sure, but if the idea is to provide benifits to parents, the benifits should be tied to having children, not just getting married.

The two are intertwined. It is not just having children, but providing a stable environment in which to raise children. Marriage is the best way to accomplish this goal, between a man and a woman.

Look at it this way. We all have gender roles. It is only by some sort of example provided, that children learn to work within their own role, and with the role opposite to them.

Not to mention that there are lots of children that need adoption,

Are there? There is a long list of couples waiting to adopt, who cannot, because there are no children, or it is very difficult for them to adopt.

perhaps most importantly, surely you understand that a gay person is not going to produce children ANYWAY.

I dispute that sexual preferences are fixed. People can and do change.

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.

Start with my counter-arguments.

Covering it up by trying to argue this "benifit to society" angle isn't fooling anyone.

People see what they want to see, regardless of the truth.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

So my question to you, did the availability of divorce, in any way contribute to the breakup of their marriage? Yes, the difficulties are there, but does it make sense to say that all divorces only happen because of the difficulties in the marriages?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

yep... I cans see how you would see discrimation against people you consider sinners good

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

I would argue that society derives many benefits from any GOOD marriage... because you have happier and more stable people.

What about the averages? Most marriages are good, we just talk more about the bad ones.

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

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.

yet you have been unable to quantify a single benefit.

What about this one?

http://www2.duq.edu/familyinstitute/templates/features/csmf/children.html

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

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Straight up argument.

Would giving the benefits to Vets, dilute the benefit, if it were given to everyone, while not reducing the amount of the benefits paid to the Vets?

[Ben Kenobi]

For starters, ending pointless legal discrimination seems like quite a good reason in and of itself.

Begging the question here.

It presumes that all discrimination is in fact bad.

So does allowing people currently barred from marriage to officially celebrate their unions. Their happiness should count for something (I know you don't care about their happiness, but many do).

How would one quantify 'happiness?'

Moving some of the 100,000 kids stuck in institutions awaiting adoption into loving families strikes me as an obvious benefit to society as well.

And what does this have to do with gay marriage whatsoever? Would not reforming the instutitions involved in child adoption accomplish the same task, by clearing away some of the red tape?

[Ben Kenobi]

What about heterosexual atheists that want to get married? Should they also be barred from getting married?

No. That's why we have a civil institution, so that they do not have to submit to religious authorities.

Just don't ask to get married in a church because of the architecture.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Begging the question here.

It presumes that all discrimination is in fact bad.

Huh? I didn't say "all discrimination". I said "pointless discrimination". So far, I have yet to see even one decent argument for discrimination against gays, therefore I deem it "pointless". Pointless discrimination has no place in our nation's law.

How would one quantify 'happiness?'

How about in numbers of ecstatic couples?

And what does this have to do with gay marriage whatsoever? Would not reforming the instutitions involved in child adoption accomplish the same task, by clearing away some of the red tape?

No, I don't think gay people will ever be allowed to adopt on anything like a equal footing as long as they are locked out of marriage. Gays will simply be caught in a Catch-22: gay-haters will cry that we shouldn't place adopted children in homes of unmarried people. The same folks will argue that gays shouldn't be able to marry. Lockout.

Are there? There is a long list of couples waiting to adopt, who cannot, because there are no children, or it is very difficult for them to adopt.

According to the US Dept of Health and Human Services, you are wrong.

"(A)s of October 2000, there are about 568,000 children in foster care of which an estimated 118,000 are awaiting an adoptive placement."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/foster.htm

Gay couples could provide loving homes for many of these kids growing up in institutions. Unless people like you have their way, of course.

I dispute that sexual preferences are fixed. People can and do change.

You are one of a small and fast-shrinking number who still cling to this odd, unsupported notion.