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

[rah]

For the record, Marriage doesn't necessarily mean having sex. Many marriages are sexless later in life.
On the legal obligations you have to look at them one by one. You can't lump them all together. Tax benefits were put in place to encourage marriage under the assumption that it leads to a more stable society. If any coupling is seen as to lead to the same outcome then tax laws should change to accommodate them. Getting people to agree to that is something else.

For decision making ability, power of attorney agreements can serve similar purposes. Properly written wills can simulate other marriage benefits. Partnership agreement can cover financial issues. For childless relations marriage isn't really needed and should probably be avoided.

[Elok]

I don't see how anyone was being a colossal dick to you, just disagreeing with you - is that all one has to do to be a colossal dick to you these days...?

Well, you're a colossal dick to everybody, generally speaking. I'm not trying to be insulting, just a dispassionate analysis: as a rule, you're coarse and rude to everyone and everything you encounter. But I was referring specifically to the continuous and unrelenting use of terms like "silly cult," "superstitious idiots," "imaginary bull****," etc. Every time a thread starts with even the slightest relation to religion, or religious people, or ideas which might be vaguely related to religious or traditional beliefs, you, MikeH, and a number of others are there spewing out concentrated essence of *******. And honestly, it got old a long time ago.

I'm not talking about whether I'm wrong about God. Maybe I am. I'm just asserting that the subject of religion does not project an aura which magically makes it socially acceptable to be an arrogant, condescending nutsack. If I made snotty remarks about every nonreligious person in the news, or reacted to a bit of bad news posted by an atheist with "yeah, bet you wish you'd been nice to God now, you ungrateful little turd?" you would call me a dick. And you would be right.

Just something to chew on.

[Elok]

For the record, Marriage doesn't necessarily mean having sex. Many marriages are sexless later in life.

And there are also platonic marriages. But those are the exception, not the rule.

On the legal obligations you have to look at them one by one. You can't lump them all together. Tax benefits were put in place to encourage marriage under the assumption that it leads to a more stable society. If any coupling is seen as to lead to the same outcome then tax laws should change to accommodate them. Getting people to agree to that is something else.

Now there's a hurdle. Perhaps a restriction on the tax part limiting it to people living in the same house or apartment, ie people who are in some way supporting one another in day-to-day life?

For decision making ability, power of attorney agreements can serve similar purposes. Properly written wills can simulate other marriage benefits. Partnership agreement can cover financial issues.

Good to know. It'd be nice if you didn't have to write a will, just designate "spousal privilege" on some form somewhere and have it slide to that person. Why you'd want that without the other stuff, I don't know, but you might as well give the option.

For childless relations marriage isn't really needed and should probably be avoided.

I assume you mean "avoided by the people in the relationship themselves."

[MOBIUS]

Well, you're a colossal dick to everybody, generally speaking. I'm not trying to be insulting, just a dispassionate analysis: as a rule, you're coarse and rude to everyone and everything you encounter. But I was referring specifically to the continuous and unrelenting use of terms like "silly cult," "superstitious idiots," "imaginary bull****," etc. Every time a thread starts with even the slightest relation to religion, or religious people, or ideas which might be vaguely related to religious or traditional beliefs, you, MikeH, and a number of others are there spewing out concentrated essence of *******. And honestly, it got old a long time ago.

I'm not talking about whether I'm wrong about God. Maybe I am. I'm just asserting that the subject of religion does not project an aura which magically makes it socially acceptable to be an arrogant, condescending nutsack. If I made snotty remarks about every nonreligious person in the news, or reacted to a bit of bad news posted by an atheist with "yeah, bet you wish you'd been nice to God now, you ungrateful little turd?" you would call me a dick. And you would be right.

Just something to chew on.

Wow, I take it you're not having a good day...

[MikeH]

I want to know what the *****ed word is. I don't think I've actually responded to Elok in this thread.

I don't have much tolerance for religious belief these days though, that is true. I generally try and moderate what I'm saying unless someone really rabidly pro-religion is arguing against us. Didn't feel I'd been particularly strong WRT Elok, just fundamentally disagreed with him.

I used to think religion was mostly harmless, but I think that even though there are lots of people for whom it is mostly harmless, there's so much bad going with it I'm not sure it should go unchallenged.

[MikeH]

"silly cult," "superstitious idiots," "imaginary bull****,"

I think I tend to use derogatory terms like this when people are using only religious arguments to defend their position, because I think they have no weight.

[MikeH]

Or if I am feeling annoyed.

[MikeH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

[Ming]

...no, you just have really crappy reading skills, or else you simply missed my first post entirely by latching onto the second like a leech. My original argument, in that thread long ago, had little to do with religion in the first place as well.

Maybe I latched onto the second like a "leech" because you decided in an offensive manner to bring my name into a discussion I wasn't even taking part of. You started it...

I am saying that the legal rights/privileges/scooby snacks which go along with marriage--the legally significant parts of marriage--do not necessarily have to be tied to a sexual relationship. I know of no reason why tax rights, hospital visitation and all the rest should not be given to any set of two or more people who feel they need them. If two unrelated old ladies living in one home wish to file their taxes together, as they jointly run their "household," we should grant them that right regardless of whether or not they are having a sexual relationship.

With the exception of taxes, the rights you mention can already be attained through other methods as Rah mentions.

The matter of whether any given set of people are regularly having sex should be none of the government's concern.

I would say it's none of a relgions concern either. It's a personal concern between consenting adults.

As a matter of fact, it already is, practically speaking; large numbers of people cohabit and even have kids without getting the government's seal of approval in the form of a marriage certificate.

And an even larger number of people cohabit and even have kids, and have traditional families without getting a religions seal of appoval, so what's your point?

Now, I did make some snide remarks about nonreligious marriage, and on reflection they were over the line, and I retract and apologize for them. To be fair, however, YOU, MIKEH AND COMPANY WERE ALL BEING COLOSSAL DICKS.

You are the one that started it in this thread by bringing me into a discussion I wasn't even a part of... talk about being a colossal dick!
You reap what you sow.

If you'd like me to be nicer to you, perhaps you could start by making some vague attempt to be polite yourself?

I have no intention of being nice to anybody who looks down their nose at non religious marriages and tries to claim that without some silly "sacrament" or other superstitious crap, you can't have a true marriage. I have stated repeatedly that I have no problems with relgiions controlling who they are willing to marry. I see no reason for the government to "force" religions to perform a religious marriage if it is against their belief. And I don't think relgions should be forcing their beliefs on other people that don't believe like they do... especially since all relgions can't even agree on it in the first place.

I continue to believe and support the fact that religion is NOT NEEDED when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a commitment of love and parternship between consenting adults. And since it carries legal rights, it is the governements job to protect them.

For religions to say non religious people can't use the term marriage and that it should be called something else like civil unions is just insulting to any couple that love each other but don't believe in some superstition... You are demeaning the institution of marriage by trying to limit it to only those that believe in some god. Marriage isn't about some god... it's about the couple and their commitment to each other.

[MOBIUS]

Well, my latest educations about how nice religion is in Cyprus included:

A Jewish revolt in the 2nd century AD that massacred about 240,000 Greek civilians.

Christian Crusaders basically being c*nts to all and sundry.

The attempt at systematic ethnic cleansing of Cyprus of Turks before joining the country with Greece by the Orthodox Church through their EOKA terrorist helpers in the 60s and 70s. Greek Cypriots seem to delight in telling the world that their country has been split in half by the evil invading Muslim war machine of Turkey - but they conveniently forget that it was their church and their ultra nationalist stooges that lit the touch paper in the first place...

The last one is so recent in history, it's particularly chilling IMO. Not to mention it started off with a terrorist campaign against the British, who were about the only foreign power that had actually been relatively benign to the country in about 2,000 years of existence (actually, that last bit mirrors to a large degree the way Britain was treated by the Jewish terrorists in Palestine before independence)...

Religion is, basically, the root of virtually all evil in the world today.

[Lorizael]

Additional atrocities committed by religion: Just the other day, a football player scored a touchdown and pointed toward the heavens as he did so! And then, only yesterday, a driver with a Jesus fish on her car changed lanes directly in front of me without signaling!

[MOBIUS]

Who's being the colossal dick now...?

[Lorizael]

Is this a trick question?

[MOBIUS]

Oops, now don't get insulted, but for some reason I find you and Elok sort of interchangeable...

Apologies, I replied to your post thinking he was continuing his rant.

[Elok]

I want to know what the *****ed word is. I don't think I've actually responded to Elok in this thread.

I don't have much tolerance for religious belief these days though, that is true. I generally try and moderate what I'm saying unless someone really rabidly pro-religion is arguing against us. Didn't feel I'd been particularly strong WRT Elok, just fundamentally disagreed with him.

I used to think religion was mostly harmless, but I think that even though there are lots of people for whom it is mostly harmless, there's so much bad going with it I'm not sure it should go unchallenged.

To be fair, in this thread you only gave a to Ming's "blah-blah religion sucks," but in other threads you can be just as bad as Moby. And it gets brought up constantly. If BK or somebody goes out of his way to be a jerk to atheists, I generally make some effort to correct the more absurd things he/she says--well, not so much with BK, since there's no point correcting him, but I certainly don't talk crap about your beliefs. Partly as a matter of courtesy (the more important reason), partly because, while some unbelievers on this forum can be nasty, the majority, like Arrian, Guy, and even KH, just say they don't believe and leave it at that.

As for more civil discussion/argument/debate, I get the impression--maybe I'm mistaken, but it's a strong impression--that for the most part the people on the "no religion" side aren't actually interested in understanding our beliefs, why we believe them, or even whether they're true or false; they just want to wank their egos by making fun and being heels. Whenever such a discussion crops up, it turns into a bullying session. Any attempt by a religious person to mention a theological distinction gets steamrolled over or made into a ludicrous strawman. Oh, and occasionally somebody will invent motivations for us, that's fun too. Here I was, thinking I had a bunch of complicated and interrelated reasons for believing, but no, either I'm too ***** to face up to my own mortality, I'm ignorant of science, or I hate everything. There are other reasons I don't participate (Orthodox theology differs markedly from the Western kinds used by other Christians on this board, to name one), but mostly it just seems pointless, because the other side has its mind made up.