Same-sex Marriage Debate is Officially Over in Canada

[Drogue]

Me, for one. I think marriage is a religious event, and thus I favour civil ceremonies for gay couples (and straight couples who want a civil ceremony) and marriage to be left as defined by any particular church or religion who wants to marry people.

[chequita guevara]

That's a distinction without a difference. You're opposing a word, not the legal and social construct underlying it.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How many atheists do you know who oppose gay marriage?

How many, I don't know.

I also have gay friends(I lived for 2 about years with a gay, who is also one of my best friends) who are opposed to gay marriage. I know many self proclaimed atheist or agnostic who are opposed to gay marriage.

There was many opinion text(and some of them was from known atheist or agnostic) in newspaper(here in Quebec) who were against the same sex marriage.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How many atheists do you know who oppose gay marriage?

I know at least one, but that's because he's fairly homophobic.
However, French atheists are nothing like American atheists: the French ones generally have no gripe against the Church, they just don't care about it.

I don't know any of those, but I've read the argument (held by hardline religiophobes) several times that marriage is a religious institution, and that we should throw it all away. Granting marriage to homosexuals would strengthen that religious institution.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's a distinction without a difference. You're opposing a word, not the legal and social construct underlying it.

Well then why do gay rights activists protest against not having marriage when they can have civil ceremonies? I agree they should have the same rights before the law, but in some places they have that, but it isn't considered a marriage still.

There is something of a social construct. Civil unions that allow the same rights before the law as marriages are not the same, in many people's eyes, as a marriage.

[KrazyHorse]

No, the problem is that the civil authorities use a different word word even if a church has performed the ceremony (as some do).

[SpencerH]

I'm an agnostic who doesnt oppose gay marriage but I accept that there are some religious societies (such as the USA) where the social implications of gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) are too contraversial and are therefore a detriment to the society (as a whole).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drogue

I agree. Asher, while BK's opinions may be insulting to you, he hasn't used this thread to pour scorn upon gay people, by saying things like "homosexual bigot" or somesuch. You have. BK has acted entirely politely towards you in this debate, and you haven't returned the favour. There's nothing here that's ban-able or in complete contradiction to the rules, so this is a provisional warning to be nice before it slips any further.

Also I've removed the "Ben cries himself to sleep" from the title, since it's a clear troll towards Ben and threads aimed at one person are not allowed. It also it has nothing to do with the actual debate.

What makes having a semblance of "debate" with BK, is that he doesn't so much as blatantly throw out obvious bigoted insults towards gays and lesbians but he constantly puts forth fallacious "arguments" and half-truths that distort the issue.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm an agnostic who doesnt oppose gay marriage but I accept that there are some religious societies (such as the USA) where the social implications of gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) are too contraversial and are therefore a detriment to the society (as a whole).

At one time interracial marriage was very controversial -- should we not have legalized it at the time because of its controversial nature?

[Elok]

MrFun, if fallacious arguments and half-truths were against site policy the OT would have a grand total of two threads in it. And they'd probably both be damned suomithreadis.

[MrFun]

Never said they have to be officiall prohibited -- I'm just trying to explain to others where people who argue with BK get their frustration from.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drogue
I agree. Asher, while BK's opinions may be insulting to you, he hasn't used this thread to pour scorn upon gay people

His very opinion is one that pours scorn. He believes gay people are second class citizens. It doesn't matter if he's polite while saying it.

Can you imagine what would happen if we had a polite person making a case again black people marrying?

Such people are rude and scornful on their face.

[Elok]

Fair enough. It sounded like you were suggesting otherwise initially.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drogue
Me, for one. I think marriage is a religious event, and thus I favour civil ceremonies for gay couples (and straight couples who want a civil ceremony) and marriage to be left as defined by any particular church or religion who wants to marry people.

Stop being a liberal arts academic and join the real world.

I agree marriage has no business being a legal construct, but it is, and the Religious bigots have no problem with this. As such, they have openly invited marriage to be opened up under the constitution. I'd be just as happy if it was removed from the legal system altogether, and replaced with a universal "civil union" nonsense, but that's not what happened.

So please, let's debate this on substance, not semantics. If we wanted to argue semantics we'd all join some liberal arts whinefest program.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drogue
Well then why do gay rights activists protest against not having marriage when they can have civil ceremonies?

Civil ceremonies still do not afford equivalent rights under the law, and even then, the problem is why should the government discriminate based on religious pretexts?