Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[loinburger]

I am surprised that Ben "women are subservient to men" Kenobi is arguing that Christianity made marriage a 2-way street

[Robert]

So why do you permit churches to perform baptisms, to perform confirmations? Marriage is a sacrament, no different from any of the others.

The state should stay the hell away from the church and let them perform marriages. The only problem is that atheists who want marriage to convey secular benefits would ***** and moan.

Frankly, why are atheists participating in a sacrament anyways? You don't believe in it, so why call it marriage? Call it something else, and do whatever the hell you want, but leave us alone. You wouldn't get baptised, so why bother to get married?

There's a church marriage and a constitutional marriage.
There's church baptism, but not a thing as constitutional marriage.

Churches can have their marriages. Overhere it's possibl to marry in the church. But it doesn't count as an official constitutional marriage. That's why dutch churches only are willing to have wedding ceremonies to couples who married in the city hall first.

If marriage is a sacrament, we differ in opinion. I don't think it is. But even if you believe it is, it doesn't change anything.
Just let the government do the constitutional marriages, and have the church marriage happen after it.
There's nothing wrong with that.

My sister went to the city hall on thursday to sign the paper work. Then the day after she had her wedding day on friday in the church and with the party, etc.

State and church are seperated, that's why the church should not perform state jobs. Perhaps it's confusing, because both are named 'marriage'. But a church marriage is a different thing then a constitutional marriage.

church marriages are only for church members. constitutional marriages are for everybod. And there are also marriages for other groups, like muslims or jews or atheists, who would never marry in a church, but would still want to marry.

And for the record, I'm not an atheist

[Robert]

Just strip Hieuj of his position. It's not right, Plomp, and you need to do something about it.

Not sure what you're getting at
He is not a staff member

Maybe you should contact your local priest and ask him to perform the ritual

j/k: I did indeed forget to take away the staff badge.
But that's not related to this topic.

As for banning the topic, yeah, that's a real solution. Poly is all about free discussion.

Then discuss it freely without making it personal.
If possible without flaming and using ****'s b/c that helps a lot.

And this is not directed only to you, but to both camps.
Just get over it. Discuss it rationally. Try to undertand the other party. Place yourself into his position.

The first thing I notice here is that you guys are totally not able to understand each other. Understand how it is when you're a believer, God is very important to you, how you want to serve him as the key purpose of your life, and how you are hurt when he is being insulted.

Undestand how it is to be gay, when it's a key element of your identity. How it decides much for your life, regarding chosing a partner and running a household with another man. How it is to find love and comfort.

Imagine how difficult it must be if you're mocked b/c you're gay or b/c you're a believer. How it is when a key element of your identity is casted away as bs or wrong or stupid or backwards or evil.

Just imagine it.
And then have the argument with mutual respect.
Say your honest opinion, but say it with dignity.
I'm all for speaking your opinion, but your opinion is not heard (!) when it's burried in flames or misunderstanding. It serves the goal of both camps to understand each other first. Only people who really understand where the other person is coming from, may (!) be able to convince the other.

I personally think that it's short sighted to mock people because they hold onto a view that was valid and dominant for thousands of years.
And I also think that it's short sighted to expect people to live up to you norms if they don't even share you values.
And I think it's not christian to discuss the supposed sin without caring about the supposed sinner.

To me it seems like the tolerant one(s) aren't behaving tolerantly and the christian(s) aren't behaving like christians.
What's next? Osama Bin Laden suggesting to discuss his differences of opinion with the Dalai Lama, who in return slaps him in the face?

[Asher]

I'm respectful to most Christians here. Just not Ben.

Ben is no Christian.

[Hauldren Collider]

question about gay marriage. I have heard it cited that if gay people could get married, it would increase monogamy and reduce the spread of AIDS. This would be nice, but I find this hard to believe given the frequency with with people cheat on their spouses. Then again, it is plausible. Is there any good data on this?

[Zevico]

How about treating me like a human being? You think I spend my time 24/7 campaigning against gay people? Heck, I've spent far more time out canvassing against this HST and watching Hockey games.

I'm a simple guy. You want me to be considerate, then perhaps it might do all of you some good to reflect the behaviour that you desire.

Or you can continue to make threads attacking me, and act all surprised when I push back.

It's your call.

Yeah, that's the trouble. You and Asher are a little too...extreme about this. Asher tends to call you a liar, when he can't really read your mind, and it's entirely possible that you're simply lazy about these debates once they descend into he-said she-said slanging matches, and/or that you take that approach to pretty much every debate on the assumption that it will devolve into such. So reasoned discussion is out the window.

[loinburger]

question about gay marriage. I have heard it cited that if gay people could get married, it would increase monogamy and reduce the spread of AIDS. This would be nice, but I find this hard to believe given the frequency with with people cheat on their spouses. Then again, it is plausible. Is there any good data on this?

There aren't very many gay marriages to make up the data set

It might be possible to find a correlation (or lack thereof) between monogamy and marriage in straight people though, and then assume that the correlation (or lack thereof) would hold for gay people. The usual suspects would reject the assumption that straight marriages and gay marriages are basically the same thing, but tough toes to them.

[Asher]

question about gay marriage. I have heard it cited that if gay people could get married, it would increase monogamy and reduce the spread of AIDS. This would be nice, but I find this hard to believe given the frequency with with people cheat on their spouses. Then again, it is plausible. Is there any good data on this?

How could there be, given how new gay marriage is?

Intuitively, it makes a helluva lot of sense. It could also be extrapolated by other societal cross-sections.

The people who are most at risk at STDs in the gay community identify as "straight". They're the married creeps on CraigsList, or the homophobes. They hate themselves, and as a result they're careless. Look at the m4m ads under "casual encounters" on craigslist...about half of them claim they are "straight" guys looking for random hookups with strangers. "discrete" is mentioned in like 99% of the posts. They do all kinds of risky stuff that well-adjusted gay people I know and hang out with wouldn't ever do.

If society doesn't reject gays, then there's no need to be hiding who they are. They don't need random hookups, sneaking out on their wives and kids...they can meet someone they truly love in every way, and be more faithful to them.

[Zevico]

Since we now have one common marriage law, for everyone, and churches is the main place to marry, the churches are under great pressure to conform.

(a) members of a given church are perfectly entitled to express their views;
(b) so are non-members;
(c) if members of a church feel pressured to change their approach to marriage, they should remember that said pressure is all in their heads, because no one can make them change their minds except them;
(d) if non-members are being mean and calling the church names for not marrying gays, then suck it up, sister. Remember: sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will never hurt you.
(e) the institution of marriage, in the legal sense, is, in theory, utterly irrelevant to its religious form.
(f) suck it up, sister.

That is really a problem for the religious freedom, a human right. In my opinion, the best solution would be to either go back to the old system of hetero marriage and gay unions, or perhaps better: Two distinct marriage laws: One for hetro people and one for gay people. That way everyone would get what they want and we avoid things like human rights violations and breaking of the constitution.

That won't solve the problem of pressure, which is being applied (by whom, incidentally?) because of church policy rather than fine legal points. It will create a formalistic distinction between the two which is relevant only in so far as it points to or explains how your society views the institution of marriage. In this case, you're making a distinction for the purpose of preserving the sanctity of religious marriage. My suggestion? Try preserving the sanctity of religious marriage by changing the behaviour of religious married people to that which is 'desirable' in a married couple, rather than asking gay people to fill out a form with a slightly different name to obtain said result. Because it's pretty poor means to an end.

[Zevico]

In the Anglosphere this means not favouring one religion over another. It does not mean banishing religion from the public sphere.

The problems arise because some social conservatives do not want gay marriage, regardless of who performs the ceremony or where it takes place. They do not want gay marriage. < Period.

Yeah, Anglosphere gets this one right. Who cares if a pastor/rabbi/imam/etc is a JP for the purpose of marriages of their religion anyway?

[Hauldren Collider]

How could there be, given how new gay marriage is?

Intuitively, it makes a helluva lot of sense. It could also be extrapolated by other societal cross-sections.

The people who are most at risk at STDs in the gay community identify as "straight". They're the married creeps on CraigsList, or the homophobes. They hate themselves, and as a result they're careless. Look at the m4m ads under "casual encounters" on craigslist...about half of them claim they are "straight" guys looking for random hookups with strangers. "discrete" is mentioned in like 99% of the posts. They do all kinds of risky stuff that well-adjusted gay people I know and hang out with wouldn't ever do.

If society doesn't reject gays, then there's no need to be hiding who they are. They don't need random hookups, sneaking out on their wives and kids...they can meet someone they truly love in every way, and be more faithful to them.

Asher, I don't think I've advocated gay people having to stay in the closet even once. I don't see how gay marriage is going to improve the acceptance of gays in the short run though. I'm fairly confident that there are a number of people who aren't homophobes but really don't like gay marriage. Forcing the issue of gay marriage surely turns away some people who would otherwise have no problem with rights for homosexuals.

[Thoth]

Asher, I don't think I've advocated gay people having to stay in the closet even once. I don't see how gay marriage is going to improve the acceptance of gays in the short run though. I'm fairly confident that there are a number of people who aren't homophobes but really don't like gay marriage. Forcing the issue of gay marriage surely turns away some people who would otherwise have no problem with rights for homosexuals.

So darkies are ok, so long as they stay at the back of the bus and don't cause problems? 'Cause if the darkies want to sit at the front of the bus it might turn away some people who would otherwise have no problems with rights for darkies.

Is that it?

[Asher]

Asher, I don't think I've advocated gay people having to stay in the closet even once.

Never said you did..was just answering your question.

I don't see how gay marriage is going to improve the acceptance of gays in the short run though. I'm fairly confident that there are a number of people who aren't homophobes but really don't like gay marriage. Forcing the issue of gay marriage surely turns away some people who would otherwise have no problem with rights for homosexuals.

I've noticed a mellowing in attitude since gay marriage has been legalized in Canada. It allows people to have their opinions of what homosexuals are to be publicly reshaped...too many people pigeonhole homosexuals as promiscuous sex addicts rather than people who want to be in a loving relationship just like everyone else. The increased visibility has helped a lot.

If you look at poll numbers, when it was legalized just a few years ago a slightly majority of Canadians opposed it. Now a clear majority support it, and every year the numbers get better.

It is Ben's nightmare. Why do you think he creams his pants talking about how much better America is?

[loinburger]

I doubt that anybody exists in the world who is thinking "I would support an equal rights amendment for the gays if they weren't so uppity about the marriage thing."

[Hauldren Collider]

xpost, so rewriting

So darkies are ok, so long as they stay at the back of the bus and don't cause problems? 'Cause if the darkies want to sit at the front of the bus it might turn away some people who would otherwise have no problems with rights for darkies.

Gay marriage and Jim Crow laws are not equivalent issues. Not even a little bit. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to disagree with gay marriage that isn't rooted in homophobia.

I've noticed a mellowing in attitude since gay marriage has been legalized in Canada.

Correlation != causation. It could be cause/effect, or it might not be. I'd like to know if there is anything conclusive on this but as you've said, at the moment it isn't clear.

I doubt that anybody exists in the world who is thinking "I would support an equal rights amendment for the gays if they weren't so uppity about the marriage thing."

Of course not. Why the hell would you need an equal rights amendment for gays? (Answer: you don't)