Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Lorizael]

Most people don't start threads, titled, "should government fund marriages?" Gay marriage is like the pet belief of Polytubbies, so it's no surprise that I'd post more on gay marriage.

You've got my argument correct. I said, "government has a vested interest in supporting marriage between a man and a woman." I also argue that the government doing so is neither discriminatory nor unconstititional.

That's not to say that I agree with government involvement, only with the phrase, "government has a vested interest".

If you don't believe that the government should monetarily support marriage, then you shouldn't use the government's interest in supporting straight marriage as a reason why there shouldn't be gay marriage.

When you leave out the fact that you don't support tax money going toward the institution of marriage at all, it's disingenuous of you and paints an incorrect picture of your stance.

Your stance on gay marriage should be, "I don't believe the government should promote the institution of marriage with tax money, therefore I do not believe that marriage - whether straight marriage or gay marriage - should be recognized by the state," and not, "I don't believe the government should promote the institution of marriage with tax money, therefore I do not believe that gay marriage should be recognized by the state." See the difference? One is consistent and reasonable, while the other makes you a hypocrite.

[Ben Kenobi]

I wouldn't be suprised if you heard that from another bigot, but please feel free to find official church doctrine that states that.

From the catechism of the Catholic church.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

That and I always find it humorous that they hate gays, while way too many of their clergy is diddling little boys. The hypocrisy knows no end. You represent everything that I hate about organized relgion. You should be proud.

Well, I don't see why you are angry at me. I'm a convert. I don't believe priests who abuse children should be sheltered by the Catholic church, and I believe the Catholic church has a duty to root out those who abuse them who are in any official capacity. It's disgusting to me. That being said, I don't believe that the policies are responsible, I hold the priests responsible. There are good and faithful priests out there, that I have had the pleasure of knowing. I don't excuse those who abuse children for not being able to control their own behaviour.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you don't believe that the government should monetarily support marriage, then you shouldn't use the government's interest in supporting straight marriage as a reason why there shouldn't be gay marriage.

Where did I state, "should?" All I stated is a statement of fact that the government has a vested interest and this is why. Gay marriage proponents have to explain why these vested interests should be turned away.

Your stance on gay marriage should be, "I don't believe the government should promote the institution of marriage with tax money, therefore I do not believe that marriage - whether straight marriage or gay marriage - should be recognized by the state," and not, "I don't believe the government should promote the institution of marriage with tax money, therefore I do not believe that gay marriage should be recognized by the state." See the difference? One is consistent and reasonable, while the other makes you a hypocrite.

Terrible argument. Argument 1 is valid, as is argument 2. You would need to amend argument 2 to say, "therefore I do not believe that the government should recognise gay marriage but should recognise traditional marriage." in order to make your case.

[Lorizael]

Where did I state, "should?" All I stated is a statement of fact that the government has a vested interest and this is why. Gay marriage proponents have to explain why these vested interests should be turned away.

You said you didn't want the government to spend money on your marriage. Assuming that you're planning on engaging in a straight marriage, that means it's your stance that you don't think the government should support straight marriage, even if you do believe the government has the right to.

Terrible argument. Argument 1 is valid, as is argument 2. You would need to amend argument 2 to say, "therefore I do not believe that the government should recognise gay marriage but should recognise traditional marriage." in order to make your case.

And every time you post about gay marriage, you come across as believing that the government should should recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage. You need to make clear that you do not believe this when you post, otherwise you're giving yourself wiggle room between the ambiguity of these positions that allows you to weasel out of being proven wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

And every time you post about gay marriage, you come across as believing that the government should should recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage.

That is because people assume the statement: "I do not support government endorsement of gay marriage" means that, "I support government endorsement of traditional marriage."

Just as one would never say that "I support government endorsement of gay marriage" means "I don't support government endorsement of traditional marriage."

There are 4 positions. AB, notAB, AnotB and notAnotB. You can't simply assume that notA = B or notB = A.

[Lorizael]

Okay then. You refuse to not portray yourself as a hypocrite. At least you've finally made that point.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm?

I don't see why people making false assumptions is my own fault. I've said it clearly, I don't support government involvement in either traditional marriage or gay marriage.

If I say, I don't support government involvement in gay marriage, that doesn't mean that I support government involvement in traditional marriage.

I don't see why I need to state my opinion on something that is off-topic, and I don't see why someone who is logical would assume that notA automatically means I believe in notAB, instead of notAnotB. You don't have enough information to draw that conclusion.

[Monk]

First off, either/or questions can sometimes fall into false dichotomy. Just because I answer something other then the choices you've left me doesn't mean I'm evading the question, I'm opening up other possibilities which you've not considered.

That's cool by me if you only explain what other possibilities we're talking about. I asked you if you'd ever try to do any dirty rhetorical tricks (such as not arguing on a logical basis) simply because you feel you ought to avoid any battle which you presumably won't win, in turn discrediting your church. You didn't answer the question AT ALL.

While I don't agree with Mobius that you're a troll, I can absolutely understand his point, since you just confirmed the very criticism I was making - moving the goalposts, ignoring the points, all that ...

[Ben Kenobi]

I asked you if you'd ever try to do any dirty rhetorical tricks (such as not arguing on a logical basis) simply because you feel you ought to avoid any battle which you presumably won't win, in turn discrediting your church. You didn't answer the question AT ALL.

No, not at all. I'm not afraid of any challenges you can bring to the church, and I don't think there is ever any point where I feel I would have to resort to this in order to win an argument.

I was referring to our earlier argument where you made a similar accusation after when I declined to answer A or B, in favour of C which I thought was the better answer to A or B.

[Ming]

Hmm?
I don't support government involvement in either traditional marriage or gay marriage.

Now that's even a more bigoted point of view against those that don't share you belief in god. So your true stripes are really starting to show.

Why should only people that believe in god be allowed to get married. Love between two people is between them not some god. People have been getting married for a long time outside the coverage of a "church" or religion.
They have the same right to marriage as religious people.

Since many religions are being bigoted about who they allow to get married, maybe they should be the people that get out of the marriage business. If they want to have some sham ceremony that makes believers think that their love is dependent on god... fine... call it whatever you want... but let EVERYBODY get married, not just those that believe in your specific view of god.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now that's even a more bigoted point of view against those that don't share you belief in god. So your true stripes are really starting to show.

Why should only people that believe in god be allowed to get married. Love between two people is between them not some god.

That's great. They can live together if that's what they want. I'm not going to stop them from living with the man or the woman of their dreams for their entire life. They want the relationship and the life, good for you. I don't see why synagogues can't have their marriages, why the temples can't have their own and the mosques have their own. We all have a plurality of different beliefs in God, so please leave that trope at hand, that I want to restrict it to those whom I share beliefs in marriage.

If athiests wanted to set up their own churches, go ahead, and marry each other. I have no problem with this either, it is freedom of association.

People have been getting married for a long time outside the coverage of a "church" or religion.
They have the same right to marriage as religious people.

Ok. I have a question for you. What does marriage mean to you? Is it just about love? I don't see why you need a piece of paper to be with the person that you love.

Since many religions are being bigoted about who they allow to get married, maybe they should be the people that get out of the marriage business.

It is freedom of association. You seem to be missing the point. No legal recognition means no legal recognition. Their marriages would have no more force outside the walls of their church, as anyone in common law.

I don't know why I'm the bigot for saying that people ought to be free to be with the person that they want to be with, and have their relationship. The church has the right to marry those that they believe conform with their own ideals, and if you don't want to live up to their ideals, go and do what you want to do.

This is what liberty is all about.

If they want to have some sham ceremony that makes believers think that their love is dependent on god... fine... call it whatever you want... but let EVERYBODY get married, not just those that believe in your specific view of god.

Why should you care about this 'sham ceremony' when it means nothing to you. I don't see why everyone should get married, when they clearly do not believe in the same thing.

Honestly, Ming I'm disappointed. Is this what people who are actually married believe marriage to be like?

[Ming]

Honestly Ben... I'm disappointed. Do people really "need" the fantasy that god blesses their union to believe that they actually have a union. I put my faith in the love people share for each other... that is what marriage is all about. It is NOT about some make believe being... it's about the couple. People that need a god to believe that they are joined are the sad ones... too bad they can't just have belief in their own love.

Freedom of religion not only means you can believe what ever silly ideas you want, but it also means you can't cram your stupid ideas down other people's throats.

Getting married means making a commitment between two people to love an honor each other. That has NOTHING to do with any silly gods... So again, maybe it's religions that should get out of the marriage business.

[Ming]

And now for probably one of the most moronic statements ever made...

If athiests wanted to set up their own churches, go ahead, and marry each other.

Uhhh... if people don't believe in god, they don't need no stink'in churches. That's what the civil authority is for... doing what they have done for ages... marry people.

Not everybody needs to believe in your silly gods. And these people have a right to marriage. I would state that the piece of paper the civil authorities issue is far more important than some priest mumbling a few words. And that's why in the US, you need a civil license to get married... and not just the ramblings of some priest. Without the license, the state ignores the ramblings.

[Ben Kenobi]

Honestly Ben... I'm disappointed. Do people really "need" the fantasy that god blesses their union to believe that they actually have a union.

No, they don't, not at all. You want to be with someone, then go and be with them. What more do you need then that?

Freedom of religion not only means you can believe what ever silly ideas you want, but it also means you can't cram your stupid ideas down other people's throats.

Who's cramming anything down your throat. You want to be with someone you love, then go and do so.

Getting married means making a commitment between two people to love an honor each other. That has NOTHING to do with any silly gods... So again, maybe it's religions that should get out of the marriage business.

As you said they have freedom of religion. They are free to marry whomever they want without outside interference.

[Ben Kenobi]

Uhhh... if people don't believe in god, they don't need no stink'in churches. That's what the civil authority is for... doing what they have done for ages... marry people.

On my dime. Why should I pay for other people to get married? You won't be paying for my wedding.

I would state that the piece of paper the civil authorities issue is far more important than some priest mumbling a few words. And that's why in the US, you need a civil license to get married... and not just the ramblings of some priest. Without the license, the state ignores the ramblings.

If it's just about love, why do you need the license?