Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Krill]

Discuss the topic, not the poster!

Ming's just trying to save his soul.

I think you used the wrong logins for those respective posts.

[rah]

If you think that's idiotic, just call me an idiot instead.

you're not an idiot. OK, at least it hasn't been proven yet.
But anyone that would take a mod position in the OT has to consider the posibility. And that's from experience.

[Q Classic]

Are you sure the situation is idiocy, or insanity? I'd vote the latter, since the former would suggest cognitive deficiencies, which Lori hasn't displayed.

[rah]

The original idiot comment was pointed at someone different.
But yes, you're probably right, I should have used insane in my previous quote.

[Ben Kenobi]

So my previous snide comments aren't really meant to hurt, nor are they meant to drive them from the site. I'm well aware how ineffective they'd be for that purpose. For them to have an effect, the target would have to have displayed a fundamental ability to listen and comprehend the other side's posts.

Wow are you really that confident that the only reason I haven't bothered to get upset at your posts is because I haven't understood them?

You haven't said anything I haven't already said myself at one time or another. That is why your arguments really don't bother me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ahh, some good arguments. Thanks Lorizael.

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.

All true. Marriage will exist with or without the state. The state can redefine what it considers to be marriage, but cannot change the concept in itself. The state can choose to give marriage licenses to whomever it wants, but the true meaning of marriage predeates every state in existance.

This is the distinction between the two, between the concept of marriage and what the state recognises as such.

Then why didn't we see the argument for marriage in the Constitution arguing that marriage was subject to freedom of association? From what I can tell, they recognised that marriage existed prior and outside of the constitution, and that while a government might acknowledge marriage, it could not determine the content of marriage.

The proper role of government is not to change the definition, but rather to recognise marriage.

Yes I believe some forms of discrimination are good. I feel that the government should help married folks out where they do not help folks in other relationships.

Hmm, that's an argument wrt to the Charter of Rights, which appeals to section 15 or ameliorative benefits, something which doesn't apply at all to the US.

Constitutionally things are different between Canada and the US, such that I don't believe this argument is tenable for the US, whereas it works up here.

[Ming]

Ahh, some good arguments. Thanks Lorizael.
All true. Marriage will exist with or without the state.

Marriage will exist with or without religions... you're point?

The state can redefine what it considers to be marriage, but cannot change the concept in itself.

Why not... they already have in the past. Remember, some religions and countries allow multiple wives. At one point, it was ok in some parts of the US. So sure, they can and have changed the concept.

The state can choose to give marriage licenses to whomever it wants, but the true meaning of marriage predeates every state in existance.

And some would claim that it predates formalized religion...
Churches can recogonize marriages however they choose, but all don't agree on the true meaning. Again, some feel that multiple wives are ok, while others consider it a sin.

This is the distinction between the two, between the concept of marriage and what the state recognises as such.

Why should religion have the advantage over government? They are both just institutions...

The proper role of government is not to change the definition, but rather to recognise marriage.

Again... they already have. I guess it's OK when it meets your views, but what about all the mormons out their. Having the government recogonize gay marriages would be the same type of change.

You again seem to think that marriage is the sole right of religions... It's not.
Since religions can't agree on even the basic concept... it should be left up to the government so that religious discrimination doesn't come into play.

[Ming]

And Ben... why should YOUR specific religions views be the one that can define marriage?
Are you really saying that only your beliefs should be considered by the government.
What about religions that accept gay marriages... they have defined it, so using your logic, the government should recogonize them.

We have freedom of relgion in this country. That means the government can define marriage, and not just one single religion.

[Q Classic]

Wow are you really that confident that the only reason I haven't bothered to get upset at your posts is because I haven't understood them?

You haven't said anything I haven't already said myself at one time or another. That is why your arguments really don't bother me.

I'm sure you understood the invective, since that's pretty blatant. It's the other stuff.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage will exist with or without religions... you're point?

Depends on how you define it. Right now, if you live with someone for 2 years up here in Canada, you are considered married. That's very, very different from a lifelong commitment to your wife, where the man and the woman are joined together.

Can you really call the first one 'marriage' in the same sense as the second? The definition is already bifurcating.

Why not... they already have in the past.

You are asking if they can change the Christian ideal of marriage? The answer to that is no. They can call whatever they like 'marriage', but it doesn't alter the idea one bit. You can't change ideas by changing definitions. I can call a dog a cat, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cat.

Remember, some religions and countries allow multiple wives. At one point, it was ok in some parts of the US. So sure, they can and have changed the concept.

They have changed the definition, but not the idea that marriage should be one man and one woman.

And some would claim that it predates formalized religion...

Without any proof, it's a dubious claim. Justices of the peace are a very modern invention.

Again... they already have. I guess it's OK when it meets your views, but what about all the mormons out their. Having the government recogonize gay marriages would be the same type of change.

I quoted the jurisprudence and they argue the same thing. In English culture we do not have multiple wives. They argued that the role of the state is to preserve the definition of marriage in law, not to alter it to suit the purposes of a minority. In their minds, no one is forced to remain in America, if they don't like the laws, then they should not have came and settled.

You again seem to think that marriage is the sole right of religions... It's not.

Terrible terminology.

1. I don't believe marriage is a fundamental right, for anyone.

2. I don't believe that marriages should under law be conducted by the churches, or any one church in particular.

3. I believe that marriage, is a fundamentally religious concept, and to take religion out of marriage robs it of it's meaning. To me, it's analogous to baptism. What use is baptism if it's not done in the name of the father son and holy spirit?

Since religions can't agree on even the basic concept... it should be left up to the government so that religious discrimination doesn't come into play.

Again, a terrible argument. Since the state can't come up with a definition that they are willing to stick with they should be the ones who stop issuing marriage licenses. The changes aren't on the part of the churches, but of the state, because a vocal minority has decided that they don't like the bargain of taking marriage as it is.

[Ming]

Depends on how you define it. Right now, if you live with someone for 2 years up here in Canada, you are considered married. That's very, very different from a lifelong commitment to your wife, where the man and the woman are joined together.
Can you really call the first one 'marriage' in the same sense as the second? The definition is already bifurcating.

And exactly what difference does religion make? It's as strong as people making vows to each other... some of which don't even last two years.
I can sure call them the same... two people loving each other and spending their lives together. Again, the state can make that decision. Religions differ on their opinions... which one is right. Heck, if the religions can't agree... somebody has to.

You are asking if they can change the Christian ideal of marriage? The answer to that is no. They can call whatever they like 'marriage', but it doesn't alter the idea one bit. You can't change ideas by changing definitions. I can call a dog a cat, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cat.

So what's so special about the "Christian ideal"? There are far more religions than just Christians. Last time I checked, Christians weren't the state religion of either Canada or the US. It doesn't really matter what Christians call marriage. You can call a dog a cat, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just one religious point of view, and not universal.

They have changed the definition, but not the idea that marriage should be one man and one woman.

Again... strickly your religions point of view. Other religions would disagree.
Why should we ALL live by your crazy definition?

Without any proof, it's a dubious claim. Justices of the peace are a very modern invention.

You have no proof for your claim either... so it's irrelevent.

I quoted the jurisprudence and they argue the same thing. In English culture we do not have multiple wives. They argued that the role of the state is to preserve the definition of marriage in law, not to alter it to suit the purposes of a minority. In their minds, no one is forced to remain in America, if they don't like the laws, then they should not have came and settled.

Amd what does this have anything to do with the discussion. The FACT is, the definition of marriage in this country has changed. If you don't like the fact that you can't cram your narrow minded religious beliefs down everybodies throats, you can always leave.

1. I don't believe marriage is a fundamental right, for anyone.

2. I don't believe that marriages should under law be conducted by the churches, or any one church in particular.

3. I believe that marriage, is a fundamentally religious concept, and to take religion out of marriage robs it of it's meaning. To me, it's analogous to baptism. What use is baptism if it's not done in the name of the father son and holy spirit?

Just one narrow minded bigots point of view... irrelevent. Trying to compare baptism, which is accepting a religion, vs marriage, which is accepting love and a commitment are two totally different things. I'm sure there are a lot of people who think their marriage is worth far more than your bigoted attitude.
Just because they got married outside of some stupid religion, doesn't mean that haven't made a stronger and more meaningful commitment then some of the hypocrits that get marrried inside a silly building with a cross on it.

Again... please prove that marriage is a religious concept. It's just your opinion... and a worthless one at that. People have been getting married for a long time without the approval of some religious nut job. And again, some religions support and perform gay marriages... Your's is not the only religion.

Plus... if you want to get down to what came first... The christian faith is actually one of the newer ones... People were being married on ships long before the first christian priest did it.

Answer the question... why should your silly religion be the only one that dictates to the government what is and what isn't a proper marriage.
There are far more religions than yours... and not all of them agree.

Again, a terrible argument. Since the state can't come up with a definition that they are willing to stick with they should be the ones who stop issuing marriage licenses. The changes aren't on the part of the churches, but of the state, because a vocal minority has decided that they don't like the bargain of taking marriage as it is.

That vocal minority will soon be a majority... Again, you haven't addressed the issue of multiple POV's from different religions. Why should yours be the deciding voice?

[Ben Kenobi]

And exactly what difference does religion make?

That's actually a really good question. Marriage isn't easy. Religion helps bring you closer to your wife then you would otherwise, and gives you the strength to bear with the difficult times. It also gives you a community that you and your wife will be a part of that hopefully supports you in your decisions.

That's the thought anyways. I wouldn't want to take on a marriage without having the benefit of the church.

It's as strong as people making vows to each other... some of which don't even last two years.

You would have us turn a blind eye, but perhaps taking the church out of marriage isn't really the best idea. Divorce is endemic these days.

I can sure call them the same... two people loving each other and spending their lives together. Again, the state can make that decision. Religions differ on their opinions... which one is right. Heck, if the religions can't agree... somebody has to.

And the state doesn't agree either. The definition has changed more in my whole life, then it has in centuries. I'm not all that old either.

What confidence do I have in a state that will soon approve of polygamy and allow pretty much anything to go? How do I know that in 5 years that the law is going to resemble anything that we see today?

So what's so special about the "Christian ideal"?

They are the only ones who truly believe in equality. Christians see the bond in marriage as a fundamental change in the identity of those who marry, that the two people become one flesh. This union doesn't fade, but remains until death do you part. You can look around, but it's never, never the same for anyone else.

In the secular world, a woman is at the whims of feelings of desire which fades and changes over time. She can wake up one morning and find herself alone. What is the security of that kind of marriage? How do people trust over time, knowing that if it's just a contract that it can be broken without any say so?

Christian marriage on the other hand, gives the women the protection that she desires in having a husband who won't walk out on her the next morning.

There are far more religions than just Christians. Last time I checked, Christians weren't the state religion of either Canada or the US. It doesn't really matter what Christians call marriage. You can call a dog a cat, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just one religious point of view, and not universal.

That is true, that the ideal of one man and woman in marriage is not universal, but we are going to soon see the consequences of the wholesale abandonment of the ideal. One could say that laws against murder are not universal, and use that as justification to remove all laws. Or we could simply say, we know this works best for society and we aren't going to engage in foolish social experiements.

Ming, my generation, my whole life has been a social experiment at the hands of a generation that knows crap all. I don't want to be a part of a social experiment. I want the same life that my parents had an opportunity to be in, the life that they tossed away as if it were worthless.

Again... strickly your religions point of view. Other religions would disagree.
Why should we ALL live by your crazy definition?

It's obviously been a great success for western society. Why do we need to change things, when it is obvious that the changes of the last 50 years are a complete and utter failure?

You have no proof for your claim either... so it's irrelevent.

The Civil Marriage Act of 1836 in England was the first to permit 'civil marriages.' So yes, it's a modern innovation. Prior to that you had to have a priest or a pastor.

Why don't you actually man up and provide some evidence for all your claims?

Amd what does this have anything to do with the discussion. The FACT is, the definition of marriage in this country has changed. If you don't like the fact that you can't cram your narrow minded religious beliefs down everybodies throats, you can always leave.

Yet you would cram your idea of marriage down my throat. Wonderful. Why should your idea of marriage take precedent?

I'd be all for refererendums and ballot initiatives, but the truth is wherever it has been put to a ballot, the measures have lost. They have all been implemented in the same way, through judicial fiat.

Trying to compare baptism, which is accepting a religion, vs marriage, which is accepting love and a commitment are two totally different things.

How so? They are both sacraments. Why don't we see 'atheist baptisms' too?

I'm sure there are a lot of people who think their marriage is worth far more than your bigoted attitude.

People can think what they want to think, it's a free world, and I'm allowed to disagree without being labelled a bigot.

Just because they got married outside of some stupid religion, doesn't mean that haven't made a stronger and more meaningful commitment then some of the hypocrits that get marrried inside a silly building with a cross on it.

Well, seeing as the law no longer requires a formal commitment, simply living in the same place for 2 years is enough to be 'married'. Are you saying that those who don't make a public commitment shouldn't be considered married at all?

Again... please prove that marriage is a religious concept.

Marriage has been a sacrament for 2000 years. Civil marriage is less then 200 years old.

It's just your opinion... and a worthless one at that. People have been getting married for a long time without the approval of some religious nut job.

Sure, but people have been getting married inside churches for much longer.

And again, some religions support and perform gay marriages... Your's is not the only religion.

That is true. Some religions allow you to marry as many people as you want.

Plus... if you want to get down to what came first... The christian faith is actually one of the newer ones... People were being married on ships long before the first christian priest did it.

People have lived together for thousands of years. I'm sure Og clubbing his wife over the head and dragging her into your cave counts as a 'marriage' too.

We are going to need some ground rules first, if we are going to discuss exactly what is required for a marriage.

Answer the question... why should your silly religion be the only one that dictates to the government what is and what isn't a proper marriage.

Because it's worked for thousands of years. Why should we piss on it just to experiment?

There are far more religions than yours... and not all of them agree.

I'm sure you'd prefer to live in those areas, bastions of freedom.

That vocal minority will soon be a majority... Again, you haven't addressed the issue of multiple POV's from different religions. Why should yours be the deciding voice?

All the other alternatives just don't work that well in the real world. The atheist way is crap. We have rising divorces. We have falling marriage rates, we have more and more children missing their fathers and their mothers. In the last 50 years, it's gone up 4 to 5 times as likely. The numbers are stark. A boy without a dad is far more likely to get into a gang and go from there.

Polygamy is crap as well. Look at the societies which engage in polygamy. They are wracked with constant war. The best benefit of Christian marriage is that each man can have his own wife, and each wife her own husband.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sure you understood the invective, since that's pretty blatant. It's the other stuff.

You honestly think that your ideas are new to me?

[Jon Miller]

The government should recognize those things which are good for it. Marriage is good for stability, raising children, health, etc in society. There is no suggestion that giving these benefits to homosexuals will not also increase the same things that marriage among heterosexuals increases.

In fact, looking at the data, I would take some of the issues among the homosexual population to directly relate to a lack of society supported long term monogamous unions.

I am not in favor of forcing churches to marry those they think shouldn't. My own church won't marry many heterosexual couples, and won't marry any homosexual couples, and I am perfectly fine with that decision.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Also, as far as the other conversation, I think it is perfectly fine to say that people who practice gay sex are sinners, I think it is probably true.

However, repeatedly posting that when everyone is aware of your position, including those you are discussing the subject with, becomes trolling. Which we allow some of, but if it goes overboard we put a stop to. I don't read all of BKs posts because I often don't like to read his posts, but if he is posting such several times in the duration of a month he should stop.

JM
(Of course, everyone is a sinner, definitely myself. I don't think it is a terrible thing to be called a sinner, all it means is that we all need the saving Grace of Jesus Christ. I am sure that there are those who practice gay sex who are closer to God than myself.)