Gay marriage should never be recognize by the state because...

[Heraclitus]

Religions can't even agree on a single god... they don't agree on marriages... at least the state can be consistent and fair to all instead of religions only being fair to those that follow their version of religion. Governments should be the final word on marriages, not a whole different bunch of superstitious cults that can't agree on anything except to discriminate against those that don't agree with them.

You are missing my point. I want everyone to have the ability to customize the contract they are signing much more than they currently are allowed.

Why allow people to come up with all kinds of contracts in other fields of life but force them into a single mold in this one particular (and personally very important) instance?

[DaShi]

Ok I'll explain this slowly. Antibiotics ensure people don't die a horrible horrible death or endure major disfigurment from things like sifilis. Hence sexual mores are free to move away from strict control on sex. Hence marriage is weakers since sex can be gained fr

Syphilis. And sex can transmit HIV, antibiotic resistant STDs, and babies. Why are do so many of your arguments overlook blatantly obvious counter examples?

[Heraclitus]

While normally I want government involved as little as possible, they're the only ones that can really enforce any obligations resulting from a marriage. (religious excommunication doesn't impress me and it seems annulments aren't that expensive to buy) Without any enforcement, it has no real meaning, so government has to be involved. And while I'm always suspicious of governments, I'm more willing to believe that it would be more fairly administrated by them then by religious authorities.

Religious norms should be enforced among the faithful by the faithful.
We don't live in a time where the state should be enforcing such things or where religious can enforce their norms on the irreligious.

Freedom of association, its not illegal to shun sinners is it? So there. Steve and Ian can ignore their marriage but the Humanist lecturer that married them and people who attend the New Atheist group meetings will perhaps dislike them for taking lightly a agreed upon group specific social convention.



Also any couple or group of people can get much of what they define as marriage and put it in the civil union contract, they can also define how they can "divorce" or what is considered good reason for "divorce". The state just decries the limits of what a civil union is. Instead of like today where in many countries you aren't even allowed a prenup for this thing we call civil marriage.


People seem to be completely missing the nonsexual (and even in Germanoses case nonreproductive) dimension of my proposal.

[Heraclitus]

And sex can transmit HIV

Its very hard to get HIV from vaginal sex and yes it did scare people who practice other forms for a short while, however thanks to modern medication people can live for long time with AIDS so this is not that strong a pressure to keep old restrictive sexual mores.

antibiotic resistant STDs

I never said the factors would remain major forever. Broad spectrum antibiotic resistance however I hope you will admit is a new thing.


Babies are not a STD. However contraceptives have perhaps been a even more important reason that lets us loosen our sexual moors.

[DaShi]

Define hard.

Plus, none of that counters the stupid point you tried to make. . .slowly.

[Elok]

Oh... but that's not to say that the religious can't have weddings. They can hold them wherever they please, invite a thousand people and some religious leader who makes his living leaching off society by promoting one superstition or another that only their followers believe. And they can change their sinful existing sexual, cohabiting relationship into a sexual, cohabiting relationship that will not only cost them a ton of money and involve several lawyers if they break up, and on top of that, even more money to buy an annulment if they are catholic, and they can believe it means whatever they want. But leagly, it doesn't mean anything unless they got a marriage license in the first place and had some body sign it and return it to the state. Just because some nameless God made up by one of the many different relgiions who can't agree on anything supposedly "blessed" the union doesn't really mean anything.

People get married because they love each other and want to spend their lives together and maybe even start a family... some god isn't needed to confirm that or sanction that. It's just a crutch.

To be clear... if a couple needs the crutch of having some superstitious made up deity bless their union to feel like can spend their lives together, fine by me. But it starts with the state, with relgion being the add on. Maybe in the past, when religions were the bigger authority and were dominant in large areas of the globe, it made some sense to have them be record keepers, but now, it doesn't. You can argue that "christians" still are dominant in large areas, but the simple fact is, all christians don't believe the same things, especially when it comes to marriage. It just makes more sense for the governent to the gate keeper. In the US, no single relgiion covers enough of the people... besides the fact that many don't even believe or belong to some superstitious cult.

I repeat,

Would you like to try again, maybe make some reference to the whole "break up the privileges of marriage and make them generally available on demand as desired" aspect? Because that was pretty much THE WHOLE DAMNED POINT of what I said. I'm not impressed by your hysteria and gratuitous insults. Your extremely witty copying what I said and inserting a few extra insults and misspellings is noted.

[Heraclitus]

Define hard.

Plus, none of that counters the stupid point you tried to make. . .slowly.

About a factor of ten or more harder than say anal sex. The vagina is a robust part of the body evolved over millions of years for exchange of bodily fluids with another partner as well as the mechanical rigours of sex. The rectum is not. Oral sex also seems mostly safe.


My point was that antibiotics are just one of the ways modern medicine and technology has allowed us do away with old traditions. Old traditions aren't just crazy things mad desert people made up. They are crazy things that mad desert people made up that managed to out compete things other crazy desert people made up.

Traditional society was sexually restrictive because before one has quality condoms, safe abortion, contraceptives, medicine like antibiotics and a welfare state to take care of any tikes that manage to be born anyway one could never run our current values and not be out competed by others.

[DaShi]

Antibiotics are just one of the ways modern medicine and technology has allowed us do away with old traditions. Old traditions aren't just crazy things mad desert people made up. They are crazy things that mad desert people made up that managed to out compete things other crazy desert people made up.

Traditional society was sexually restrictive because before one has quality condoms, safe abortion, contraceptives, medicine like antibiotics and a welfare state to take care of any tikes that manage to be born anyway one could never run our current values and not be out competed by others.

Wow, this is dumber than Ben.

[DaShi]

About a factor of ten or more harder than say anal sex. The vagina is a robust part of the body evolved over millions of years for exchange of bodily fluids with another partner as well as the mechanical rigours of sex. The rectum is not. Oral sex also seems mostly safe.

You're retarded.

[DaShi]

Actually, I apologize. I shouldn't laugh at retarded people.

[Heraclitus]

Wow, this is dumber than Ben.

Are you seriously saying that it just happen stance that most civilized societies in history preferred to keep women chaste and frowned on anal intercourse (though in practice it was allowed with little boys in quite a few)?

[DriXnaK]

Who's the retarded one that doesn't know how to put it all into one post? Either that or you're too slow to think of it all at once so you keep coming back to make another post every time you think you've come up with something witty.

[Heraclitus]

You're retarded.

Anal sex without a condom is much much more unsafe than any other regular form of sex. Can you prove a single citation otherwise?

[DaShi]

Are you seriously saying that it just happen stance that most civilized societies in history preferred to keep women chaste and frowned on anal intercourse?

No, I'm saying that you've no clue what you are talking about. I'll give some people credit when they talk physics with KH. Yes, they are often being ignorant, but physics can be quite complicated and easy to misunderstand. But this is simple stuff.

[DaShi]

Who's the retarded one that doesn't know how to put it all into one post? Either that or you're too slow to think of it all at once so you keep coming back to make another post every time you think you've come up with something witty.

Hera DanS's his posts regularly. I was replying to new content in it.