Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[MrFun]

And the word "marriage" sounds so much smoother or natural in conversation too.

"We got civil unionized today."

"We got married today."

Which one sounds more romantic?

[rah]

Originally posted by MrFun


Let's say we already have the civil right to marry. A gay couple approach their traditional church to marry. The church is not legally forced to marry them and so refuses the couple's request.

But, with the full equal protection of marriage rights, this gay couple decide to leave their church and marry at a church that, out of its own free will, agrees to marry them.

Thanks to this equal rights protection, this marriage will now allow this gay couple to enjoy the more than 1,000 privileges and rights that go along with marriage, while still allowing the first church mentioned above to be free to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples.

Does that explain it better?

Yes an no. To me a true civil union would allow you to enjoy all the privileges anyway so I don't see a difference. To me Marriage is a definition from the church that really doesn't differenciate from a civil union except in the eyes of that particular church. So to me there is no difference in the two examples you show. But again, just because I don't see a difference doesn't mean that others feel the same way.

It's just a word, and a religious one at that. We've been making fun of religious concepts for a long time.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah

We've been making fun of religious concepts for a long time.

And it doesn't seem like we're going to stop anytime soon.


PS: I wanted to give that example, because you seem to prefer civil unions for gay and lesbian couples out of concern that churches would be forced to marry them if the word "marriage" would be used. My example tries to show that this would not be the case - churches would not be compelled, either way.

[rah]

I don't think churches should be compelled. Let each church decide if they want to acknowledge it. I personally believe that EVENTUALLY some churches are going to alienate some of their flock by making such an issue of it. A lot of the mainstream churchs are declining in membership. Part of the reasons are being stuck in the past. It's going to get to a point where they're going to have to move into the present if they want to survive. Needless to say it's going to take longer for some.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by rah
Actually that would have been good, since my father's big break in business came from advertising it orginally in the 60's. It allowed him to retire at the age of 49.

Damn, I'm behind schedule.

My bad, I meant to say Schmitts Gay.

[rah]

Well, my dad never advertised for them.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
I don't think churches should be compelled. Let each church decide if they want to acknowledge it.

YAY! We agree on this.

[rah]

We never disagreed

[Q Classic]

Actually, the only person who thinks churches would be compelled to recognize these marriages and be forced to marry gays...

...is Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

He was raised by his strict Mormon grandparents

1. This is no testimony to his own personal faith. Clearly he has family issues in being raised by his grandparents.

2. Cleaning up a graveyard? wtf?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, just admit that you hate gay people. I'd actually have more respect for you at this point if you did.

Hmm, let me check on that.

1. I don't hate gay people at all.

2. Even if I did, why would I do something because you would respect me more?

[Ben Kenobi]

So, you'd rather have us hew more to traditional definitions of marriage, which dovetails closer to what Islamists prefer?

First off, Christians are far older the Islam, and the concept of marriage is a Judeo-Christian ideal. I don't see how upholding a Christian tradition which predates Muhammed has anything to do with Islam.

If anything, upholding the christian definition of marriage is a repudiation of Islam which permits polygamy.

After all, the rhetoric of the Christian right parallels that of the Islamists, when it comes to women's rights and homosexuality. The only difference is that you don't have the legal right to stone us to death.

Rhetoric parallels? Hardly. The Christian opposition to gay marriage is in the belief that sodomy is sinful, and that sin is a danger to both society and to those who engage in sodomy. It has been shown that there are many negative health consequences as a result of sodomy.

Islam on the other hand would simply behead you and leave it at that. Christians recognise that religious freedom includes the freedom to reject the beliefs of a religion to one's own detriment. Again, this is far different from Islam who attempts to kill all the infidels.

I really can't see why you would see Christians at all comparable. We aren't calling to stone homosexuals, and even if it were permissible, why would we want to?

That said, I still don't see the argument of how gay marriage weakens marriage on the whole.

Ok, look at it this way.

It's similar to grade inflation. If every relationship is recognised as being 'marriage', then 'marriage' loses it's meaning. If everyone in the class is guaranteed an A, irrespective of the quality of their work, then the A is worthless.

The fact that marriage discriminates is not a bad thing, but essential to the concept. There are a great many of heterosexual relationships which do not meet the grade, should we recognise them as marriage?

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Q Classic
Actually, the only person who thinks churches would be compelled to recognize these marriages and be forced to marry gays...

...is Ben.

And that seems to be based on a belief that a church's refusal to do so would be made a hate crime, despite the fact that churches are free to refuse to marry heterosexual couples who don't meet their peculiar criteria. My wife's preacher, e.g., would have, based on previous comments, refused to marry us due to my lack of belief (fortunately, he wasn't our first choice, or second for that matter). The whole idea of a hate crime, as far as I'm aware, isn't to criminalize otherwise legal behaviors, but to recognize one strain of exacerbating factor in established crimes.

[Zevico]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First off, Christians are far older the Islam, and the concept of marriage is a Judeo-Christian ideal. I don't see how upholding a Christian tradition which predates Muhammed has anything to do with Islam.

If anything, upholding the christian definition of marriage is a repudiation of Islam which permits polygamy.

This is not exactly what the poster you were replying to was contending.

He was stating that the 'Islamist' conception of marriage is closer to the Judeo-Christian one than a conception of marriage that permits homosexual marriage or civil union.

In this sense, a repudiation of gay marriage is an act in support of Islamist ideology, though it may be done in the furtherance of traditionalism or some forms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. While you, Ben, may not find yourself on the same side as a person who calls for the killing of those who disagree with his religious beliefs, it so happens that in this very limited sense your religious beliefs and those of many Islamists coincide [if not the vast majority of them, regardless of any sectarian differences].

Rather than 'standing up' to Islamism, you are in this limited sense acting in support of that ideology.

But all this--namely, your argument, and the response by the other poster--is, with respect, besides the point.

It matters not one whit what Islamists believe or do not believe, so far as we are concerned with the creation or preservation of a society which provides its citizens with the rights they need and deserve. It so happens that you believe that persons attracted to the same gender do not require or deserve the conveniences and benefits that come with legally recognised marriages or, should you prefer the term, civil unions. This is the topic of discussion. Let's leave Islamism by the wayside.

I will try to summarise the real issue as best as I can, once more.

Marriage is a grant by the state of certain legal benefits and conveniences.

Benefits are things that are not easily attainable outside of marriage, to anyone, such as tax breaks, or in some cases the right to adopt children.

Conveniences are things that could otherwise be had if you and some other person, whether that be a parent, or friend, relative or partner, took the time to sign a form conferring you and that other person rights. A will, for instance, or power of attorney (medical or financial), and so forth. I think it is clear that no one really cares if there is one short form that provides the conveniences marriage provides to anyone who so chooses to sign it, regardless of their relationship or sexual orientation.

As to the 'benefits' of marriage, these comprise:
(a) In some cases, the ability to adopt children;
(b) In some cases, the ability to have children [e.g. via sperm fertilisation techniques etc that some countries have left only to married couples]
(b) Tax benefits, if any.

It is easy to see that these issues can be discussed separately.

Issue (a) relates allowing homosexual couples the right to adopt children, as opposed to leaving those children in orphanages, foster homes, and other tragic circumstances. It is upon you to show that it is better for these children to remain wards of the state in uncertain and disadvantaged circumstances, rather than be adopted by a given homosexual couple, examined as all couples are by the relevant child adoption agency as to their suitability for the role.
In short, I think it is very reasonable to suppose that a homosexual couple will raise a child infinitely better than any foster home or orphanage (where those exist).

Issue (b) relates to allowing homosexuals the right to rear children via sperm donors and the like. This is another way of saying: should homosexual couples be permitted to raise children?
The answer to that question lies in consideration of whether homosexual couples raise children worse or better than do heterosexual couples, or whether there is no difference that we are capable of discerning. Thus far I have not heard much to suggest that this is so, and for this reason think that such rights should be granted to homosexual couples if they wish to have them. But once again, it is of course upon you to show otherwise to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

He was stating that the 'Islamist' conception of marriage is closer to the Judeo-Christian one than a conception of marriage that permits homosexual marriage or civil union.

Entirely incorrect. How does the Christian concept of the two becoming one in marriage have anything to do with Islam, which allows a man to have 4 wives and divorce his wife whenever he chooses? To a Christian there are no longer husband and wife, but one, together in flesh and spirit in marriage.

While you, Ben, may not find yourself on the same side as a person who calls for the killing of those who disagree with his religious beliefs,

I'm not on the same side whatsoever. You see it as a choice of either or, but this is the reality.

GAY MARRIAGE -- HOLY MATRIMONY -- ISLAM

How can you say that matrimony is futher from gay marriage then Islam?

If this was the case, it would be true:

Gay Marriage - Islam - Matrimony.

Are you saying that you believe that Islam is closer to gay marriage then it is to Christian marriage?

It matters not one whit what Islamists believe or do not believe, so far as we are concerned with the creation or preservation of a society which provides its citizens with the rights they need and deserve.

I agree, but there are also things such as natural rights, to which marriage is not one of them.

Marriage is a grant by the state of certain legal benefits and conveniences.

Not true. Marriage is 'recognised' by the state, not defined as such. Therefore the state only legally recognises that which already exists, it cannot redefine marriage, because it is not the creation of the state.

Benefits are things that are not easily attainable outside of marriage, to anyone, such as tax breaks, or in some cases the right to adopt children.

With good reason. The state chooses to provide benefits such as tax breaks, because of the benefits that society obtains from marriage between a man and a woman.

Secondly, Adoption is structured that way because a child has a need for both a mother and a father. Anyone who wilfully deprives a child of either does them a great harm.

Issue (a) relates allowing homosexual couples the right to adopt children, as opposed to leaving those children in orphanages, foster homes, and other tragic circumstances.

It's not a 'right' of parents to adopt, just because of marriage. Framing the issue that way does a disservice to adoption. The government PERMITS some married couples to adopt provided that they meet the regulations outlined by the state. It isn't a right, because the only right that exists is the right of a child to a mother and a father. Permitting homosexuals to adopt exposes them to greater family instability as well as deprives them either of a father or a mother, which is why they should not be permitted to adopt.

It is upon you to show that it is better for these children to remain wards of the state in uncertain and disadvantaged circumstances, rather than be adopted by a given homosexual couple, examined as all couples are by the relevant child adoption agency as to their suitability for the role.

No, it is the responsibility of those who are arguing that gay couples should be permitted to adopt to show that they will be able to raise the children properly. The burden is always to protect the children first, not about the people who want to adopt.

In short, I think it is very reasonable to suppose that a homosexual couple will raise a child infinitely better than any foster home or orphanage (where those exist).

What about the chance of sexual abuse? I would argue that if you wilfully put a child in a situation by which they are abused, that is hardly 'infinitely' better, then the alternative. Abusive adoptive parents are far worse then say an orphanage.

Issue (b) relates to allowing homosexuals the right to rear children via sperm donors and the like. This is another way of saying: should homosexual couples be permitted to raise children?

Again, there is no such right. No one has the right to obtain these services if they are unable to pay for them. They may if they choose to make use of the services, take advantage of them, but they do not have a right to the services, any more then you or I have the right to demand plastic surgery. It may have great benefits to such, but that is far from saying that you have a right to the treatment.

You left out about half of your argument. Do you believe that gay couples don't deserve the tax benefits of marriage? I don't think they do. As we discussed earlier, gay marriage is a dead end for society. Society has an intrinsic benefit in marriage for the creation and rearing of children that will perpetuate the society in the future. Gay marriage is a blind alley that will not provide any of those benefits. Ergo, the state has no need to provide benefits.