Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Ming]

True, I'm not against all change, but there are many changes which have been for the worse.

And most of the changes have been for the better.

I'm not sure those marriages are civil in the same sense as the ones we have now. First off, a woman couldn't divorce her husband, and consent wasn't required.

I hardly think the Roman model is applicable. The modern concept of civil marriage only dates back to 1836 in England.

Now you want to include semantics and say civil... when before you clearly stated it was "marriage with priest or pastor"

As Ali C said quite so succintly, people had differences in opinion on marriage even in the dark ages, which was part of the point. You've laid out a trope of the middle ages which doesn't match the reality.

It's closer to reality than you fantasy that love was better back then.

Seriously, the Inquisition in reality isn't how it's portrayed.

Yeah... it was probably worse.

Well lets assume all things are equal. First off the non-religious marriage is not a sacrament, whereas the church wedding is a sacrament. So while some folks mike consider that to be hooey, it means very much more to other people, even if the advantage isn't recognised by all.

I have no problem with you personally thinking that if you get married, you must do it in the eyes of god or your marriage is meaningless. But we have freedom of religion... which means other people can believe what they believe, and many would disagree with you and claim your concept of "sacrament" is no more than silly superstition. The laws of this land are governed by just your beliefs.

Exactly. However, that doesn't justify the state granting civil marriages, paid for by the state. If people want to get married without religion, they should be able to do so without the blessings of the state. I really don't get why this is a problem for you Ming. If you sincerely want the separation of state and religion, then you want the state out of marriage altogether.

You keep forgetting that the government ignores your marriages unless you have a marriage license issued and granted by the state. And you keep saying that marriage should be exclusive to religion... WHY? The government has just as much right, if not more so, to sanction marriages than a single church does. I don't get why this is a problem for you.
You keep bringing up the paid by the state crap, while all non relgious people have to pay for religions because of their tax free status. So fair is fair.

However, you want the state to intervene on your behalf, which is an entirely different position. If you want the state to issue marriage licenses, then yes, my opinion is all of a sudden relevant.

Not specifically on my behalf... but on the behalf of all those that don't believe in your religion... freedom of religion also means freedom from relgion.
Plus, they have already been doing so. It's not a matter of something new for them to be issuing marriage licenses.

Ming, I've been both a believer and a non-believer. I don't think your understanding is stupid, but I think Christian marriage is far more meaningful. You are welcome to disagree, but lets get it straight. Labelling my faith as superstition is not the argument of someone with an open mind.

You are the one that doesn't have the open mind. The fact that others can get married outside the churh, just like everybody else, has no effect what so ever on your right to get married by the church. It won't effect you or your marriage. Again, the majority of people in this country don't believe in your specific flavor of religion.... You need to open your mind and let others live as they believe. You are allowed to believe what you want, let others do the same.

No, I don't thinkt that was a good thing, but I believe they had some things right, such as the importance of a family and love, which we've gotten all mixed up. Maybe it makes me foolish, but for all our gadgets, modern life has very little to offer.

Foolish doesn't even begin to sum it up

I still see no proof from you that family and love were far superior back in the good ole days of parent matched weddings. If anything, the fact that we can now pick our own mates instead of having our parents do it, or having the fathers of daughters selling them off like they used to do in the good ole days seems like more proof to me that the importance of love is far greater today.

Back in your "good ole days" women weren't partners, they were property.
Less than a hundred years ago, women were considered second class citizens. Yeah, let's bring back those good ole days.

[Dr Strangelove]

So why should we bar children from marrying if it's ok in some cultures? Isn't that discriminatory?

This is of course a joke. First of all historically child marriages were arranged by parents. Would you really have your parents chain you in marriage to a stranger whom you may not even like? Don't you think you should have the right to inflict that on your self? Second, kids are intellectually and emotionally immature. Marriage is a decision for a mature mind. Yeah, sure, some people never grow up, but setting an age standard is the best we can do currently, unless you'd like to have the state conduct batteries of tests in order to certify a person's maturity.

Considering how I always take Spain and Torquemada when we play Civ, I think you know the answer to that.

Seriously, the Inquisition in reality isn't how it's portrayed.

Yeah, the guy from whom I stold the quote that is my sig oversaw the butchery of millions in southern France. Fancy that.

Exactly. However, that doesn't justify the state granting civil marriages, paid for by the state. If people want to get married without religion, they should be able to do so without the blessings of the state. I really don't get why this is a problem for you Ming. If you sincerely want the separation of state and religion, then you want the state out of marriage altogether.

It helps prevent certain types of abuses, such as under-age marriages, forced marriages, and consanguinous marriages.

[MrFun]

BK iz stoopid.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is of course a joke. First of all historically child marriages were arranged by parents. Would you really have your parents chain you in marriage to a stranger whom you may not even like?

Where on earth did I say this was my belief? I don't believe it has any place in western society specifically British and by extension American jurisprudence. But then I believe that American culture is worth preserving in and of itself.

From the standpoint of cultural relativism, it is discriminatory to bar people from the cultural practices endemic to their people, and this would include child marriage.

Yeah, the guy from whom I stold the quote that is my sig oversaw the butchery of millions in southern France. Fancy that.

You should put 'Bloody Bess' up there instead.

Are you at all familiar with the 'Rising of the North?'

[Ben Kenobi]

And most of the changes have been for the better.

Based on bodycount, you'd have to say otherwise.

Now you want to include semantics and say civil... when before you clearly stated it was "marriage with priest or pastor"

I don't think you've understood my argument. The point is that mutual consent wasn't required by Roman civil marriage, but then obviously mutual consent isn't important to what constitutes marriage.

It's closer to reality than you fantasy that love was better back then.

Yeah... it was probably worse.

Given how trumped up the history of the inquisition is, it's the classic trope to slander the Catholic church.

I have no problem with you personally thinking that if you get married, you must do it in the eyes of god or your marriage is meaningless. But we have freedom of religion... which means other people can believe what they believe, and many would disagree with you and claim your concept of "sacrament" is no more than silly superstition. The laws of this land are governed by just your beliefs.

The laws of the land can no more favour your interpretation over mine. Let the people decide!

You keep forgetting that the government ignores your marriages unless you have a marriage license issued and granted by the state.

Forgotten? I'm the one arguing that they should not be issuing licenses.

And you keep saying that marriage should be exclusive to religion...

I've never said that. I've said that marriage should simply be open to any private body willing to conduct them. If atheists were to form their own lodges, then they could be free to pay someone to officiate.

WHY? The government has just as much right, if not more so, to sanction marriages than a single church does.

Why should the government assert that right. The government arrogated this right when there was an official religion. No official religion, no need for government interference.

You keep bringing up the paid by the state crap, while all non relgious people have to pay for religions because of their tax free status. So fair is fair.

That's a keynesian argument in which tax cuts are the same as tax benefits. There's a big difference between the two.

Not specifically on my behalf... but on the behalf of all those that don't believe in your religion... freedom of religion also means freedom from relgion.

Plus, they have already been doing so. It's not a matter of something new for them to be issuing marriage licenses.

Wow, an argument from tradition? So because it's always been done this way, means we should keep it this way? If that's so, then we don't need gay marriage.

You are the one that doesn't have the open mind. The fact that others can get married outside the churh, just like everybody else, has no effect what so ever on your right to get married by the church.

I have a problem with people getting married by the state, not outside the church. If they want to say, "there's no place like home' and wearning red slippers, they are free to do so and call themselves married. Far as I'm concerned, it's their business.

Foolish doesn't even begin to sum it up

Obviously. Romanticists and Modernists agree on very, very little.

I still see no proof from you that family and love were far superior back in the good ole days of parent matched weddings.

Then read the Clerks tale.

If anything, the fact that we can now pick our own mates instead of having our parents do it, or having the fathers of daughters selling them off like they used to do in the good ole days seems like more proof to me that the importance of love is far greater today.

Why do you continue to harp on a point, when most marriages weren't concluded this way?

Back in your "good ole days" women weren't partners, they were property.
Less than a hundred years ago, women were considered second class citizens. Yeah, let's bring back those good ole days.

Depends on who you talked to. Perhaps among the Muslims.

[Ming]

Based on bodycount, you'd have to say otherwise.

Based on quality and length of life, you'd have to say otherwise...

I don't think you've understood my argument. The point is that mutual consent wasn't required by Roman civil marriage, but then obviously mutual consent isn't important to what constitutes marriage.

And wasn't required by catholic law either... your point?

Given how trumped up the history of the inquisition is, it's the classic trope to slander the Catholic church.

No need to slander the church... the inquisition did a good enough job of showing the Church for what it was.

The laws of the land can no more favour your interpretation over mine. Let the people decide!

And the people do decide... by getting married outside the church

Forgotten? I'm the one arguing that they should not be issuing licenses.

Just as those licenses recogonize the right of marriage and the rights that go with them... not something the church can offer. If you don't want the protections offered by the government, simply don't get a license, and live only under the protection of your god. Nobody is making you have the governement support.

I've never said that. I've said that marriage should simply be open to any private body willing to conduct them. If atheists were to form their own lodges, then they could be free to pay someone to officiate.

Why just private parties? People want the rights only the government can provide. The government is already involved in more marriages than just those of your faith. Maybe your faith should be the one that backs off.

Why should the government assert that right. The government arrogated this right when there was an official religion. No official religion, no need for government interference.

No official religion, no need for religious interference on the rights of those that wish to be married. Again, feel free to get married without the support of the government if you don't wish them to be involved. MOST do.

That's a keynesian argument in which tax cuts are the same as tax benefits. There's a big difference between the two.

That's just one argument... it's still a tax break for churchs. When it comes to marriage licenses... everybody pays the same for them... which is as it should be... fair to all, not just the religious. So people already pay for their own marriages.

I have a problem with people getting married by the state, not outside the church. If they want to say, "there's no place like home' and wearning red slippers, they are free to do so and call themselves married. Far as I'm concerned, it's their business.

If people want to say that there is a god, they are free to do so and called themsleves married or a sacrament, or whatever name they want to give it.
I'm not saying you don't have that right. It is not your right to stop others from having the same rights as you have. They have the right to get married.

Obviously. Romanticists and Modernists agree on very, very little.

Obvioulsly, romanticists ignore reality.

Then read the Clerks tale.

Instead... maybe you should read some real history.

Depends on who you talked to. Perhaps among the Muslims.

[/quote]

I'm talking about european catholics during the middle ages.
And just in case you forgot to ready your history, womans right to vote is a only a recent thing in this country... until then, they were second class citizens. Heck, even the catholic church treats woman as second class citizens, not even allowing them to be priests. At least some other religions are more enlightended.

[Ben Kenobi]

And wasn't required by catholic law either... your point?

Actually, yes it was.

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:
- not being under constraint;
- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

No need to slander the church... the inquisition did a good enough job of showing the Church for what it was.

Right, it's a handy beatstick.

Of course, you'd neglect to mention that the inquisition actually had a higher standard of proof then the secular courts of the time, but then that fact would be inconvenient.

And the people do decide... by getting married outside the church

Again, you are assuming that the law should reflect your beliefs. Just because people do an action doesn't make the action lawful. Quite the contrary.

Just as those licenses recogonize the right of marriage and the rights that go with them

What rights?

If you don't want the protections offered by the government, simply don't get a license, and live only under the protection of your god. Nobody is making you have the governement support.

Yes, but by forcing government involvement, you are essentially saying that Christians have no say in their own government. This is wrong. If they government is going to be involved in marriage, then Christians do get just as much say as you do. You cannot say that the government should do civil marriages, any more then one can argue that they should not do them.

Why just private parties? People want the rights only the government can provide.

People want free money from the government. It doesn't mean they ought to receive these entitlements.

The government is already involved in more marriages than just those of your faith. Maybe your faith should be the one that backs off.

Not the argument. Why should the government be the ones involved in marriage? Originally, they were involved to enforce the standing of the church. Now that we have religious freedom, there is no need for the state to be involved.

No official religion, no need for religious interference on the rights of those that wish to be married. Again, feel free to get married without the support of the government if you don't wish them to be involved. MOST do.

You cannot claim the right to these entitlements on the backs of others. This is the problem. If you are telling people that they shouldn't get married, but would reserve the privilege and extra powers to yourself, then you are not being consistant. I don't want them involved, and I don't want to be paying for other people's weddings. You would strip them of their rights in order to keep yours. There is no difference between your position and the position of those who would wish to retain benefits for straight couples only.

That's just one argument... it's still a tax break for churchs. When it comes to marriage licenses... everybody pays the same for them... which is as it should be... fair to all, not just the religious. So people already pay for their own marriages.

Does the state pay for the marriage registrar? If so, that is a benefit provided for the sole benefit of secularists. Secularists should pay for their own officials, just like the church does for theirs.

I'm not saying you don't have that rightIt is not your right to stop others from having the same rights as you have. They have the right to get married.

I am not taking away their right to get married. I am taking away their entitlements. No one has the right to demand that the state support their marriage on the backs of other people. You are assuming that marriage without the state is somehow worthless, as if marriage cannot exist without the blessing of the state.

And just in case you forgot to ready your history, womans right to vote is a only a recent thing in this country... until then, they were second class citizens. Heck, even the catholic church treats woman as second class citizens, not even allowing them to be priests. At least some other religions are more enlightended.

They don't allow men to be nuns either. Obviously men are discriminated against.

For someone who prides himself on being a paragon of political correctness, you insult women by assuming that nuns are somehow worth less then priests.

[MikeH]

Ming never seemed to lay down this level of pwnage when he was a moderator.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Yeah, it's nice to see him and rah actually grow a pair as posters. Respec'!

[Ming]

Ming never seemed to lay down this level of pwnage when he was a moderator.

Actually... just look back at other gay marriage threads while I was a mod, and you will see that I pretty much was doing the exact same thing to BK posts...

[rah]

Yes, not being moderators is quite liberating.
Of course sometimes the target is so big, you can't miss.

[MikeH]

[Ming]

Actually, yes it was...
1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:
- not being under constraint;
- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

Are you saying that until 1625, they did it exactly like the Romans

The church always ignored the fact that a marriage was arranged, because to them, if the fathers went along, what the bride and groom wanted didn't really matter.

Of course, you'd neglect to mention that the inquisition actually had a higher standard of proof then the secular courts of the time, but then that fact would be inconvenient.

And you wish to ignore all the abuse and corruption of the inquisition, but that fact would be inconvenient.

Again, you are assuming that the law should reflect your beliefs. Just because people do an action doesn't make the action lawful. Quite the contrary.

No... you are the one that wants the law to only reflect your beliefs. I want the law to be consistent no matter what a person's beliefs are.

What rights?

OK, rights might not exatly be the best words... but the legal rights that go along with marriage.

Yes, but by forcing government involvement, you are essentially saying that Christians have no say in their own government. This is wrong. If they government is going to be involved in marriage, then Christians do get just as much say as you do. You cannot say that the government should do civil marriages, any more then one can argue that they should not do them.

I'm not forcing government involvement, they already do civil marriages, and support religious marriages....the government already is involved. That's a simple fact, and will not change just because of your sole beliefs.
Christians do have a say in the government, but your statement implies that they should be the only ones that have a say... and that is just wrong.

People want free money from the government. It doesn't mean they ought to receive these entitlements.

People get married for love... not the free money you keep claiming they get. And before you make up some story that you know a couple that got married simply for the money and how they didn't love each other, don't forget that some people create religions just to get the tax breaks...

Not the argument. Why should the government be the ones involved in marriage? Originally, they were involved to enforce the standing of the church. Now that we have religious freedom, there is no need for the state to be involved.

Oh... so the sole reason governments came about was to enforce religion.
Smart people might claim that governments used religions to help control the people
And yes, now that we have religious freedoms, there is a need for the state to ensure those freedoms by not having some wacked out religion decide what's best for everybody else.

You cannot claim the right to these entitlements on the backs of others. This is the problem. If you are telling people that they shouldn't get married, but would reserve the privilege and extra powers to yourself, then you are not being consistant. I don't want them involved, and I don't want to be paying for other people's weddings. You would strip them of their rights in order to keep yours. There is no difference between your position and the position of those who would wish to retain benefits for straight couples only.

Nobody is stopping your rights at all... just making sure everybody else has the same right. You are the one that want's to keep the basic right of marriage to yourself. And again, you keep forgetting that you aren't the only religion. Some religions already allow gay marriages... why shouldn't the government recogonize their marriages like they do your religion?
You are the one that wants extra powers and privileges... Everybody, not just the ones that believe what ever nonsense you believe, should have the same rights.

Does the state pay for the marriage registrar? If so, that is a benefit provided for the sole benefit of secularists. Secularists should pay for their own officials, just like the church does for theirs.

Frankly, I don't know if the cost of marriage licenses cover all the expenses...
But that's not really an issue. The church get's tax breaks so that they can afford to keep their own records

I am not taking away their right to get married. I am taking away their entitlements. No one has the right to demand that the state support their marriage on the backs of other people. You are assuming that marriage without the state is somehow worthless, as if marriage cannot exist without the blessing of the state.

Please list all the entitlements that non religious marriages enjoy that relgious marriages don't. And I've never said that marriage without the state is worthless... and I've never implied it. But in todays modern society the legal protections offered by the state to married couples is important, and should not just be available to those approved by your religion.

They don't allow men to be nuns either. Obviously men are discriminated against.

Yep... just like barbarians and other silly religions, women are treated as second class citizens in the eyes of the Church. The highest levels of the church are denied them simply because of their sex.

For someone who prides himself on being a paragon of political correctness, you insult women by assuming that nuns are somehow worth less then priests.

And your response shows just how moronic your arguments are... From a person that talks about how marriage is a sacrament... I must ask, are nuns allowed to perform the sacraments... the most important thing in the Church... OH, only priests can do that... so Yes, I guess the Church views nuns as less than priests. Also, can a nun ever become the pope? Oh, that's right, only a male priest can head up the Catholic church, women aren't allowed that...

But all your recent posts do prove one thing... that you have no real argument except "my beliefs are more important than yours"... and my response is that everybody has the right to their own beliefs and the government shouldn't support one vs the other.

Again... please explain how allowing gays to get married would effect your right to marry a girl of your dreams. Please explain how this would cheapen your marriage... Your obvious response is that your whole point is that government shouldn't be doing it in the first place... well guess what, governments are involved... that isn't going to change.

You will also continue to rant about how much money those marriages are costing you... yet everybody that's married in the eyes of the government gets the same supposed breaks... which seems fair to me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And who's next on the same sex marriage bandwagon? No less than former VP Dick Cheney

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018434.php

Dick Cheney rarely takes a position that places him at a more progressive tilt than President Obama. But on Monday, the former vice president did just that, saying that he supports gay marriage as long as it is deemed legal by state and not federal government.

Speaking at the National Press Club for the Gerald R. Ford Foundation journalism awards, Cheney was asked about recent rulings and legislative action in Iowa and elsewhere that allowed for gay couples to legally wed.

"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."

[Lorizael]

People ought to get shot at.

Fixed.