Hello everybody

[Jon Miller]

Why not have marriage and homo-union (or some other word)?

Marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what it is and has been (to a conservative mind), and an open minded conservative would be in favor of homo-unions to allow a man and a man to establish their decision to live as partner and co-partner by legal (and religious) commitments.

Marriage would be a man and woman establishing their decision to live as husband and wife by legal (and religious) commitments.

While you might call yourself a conservative, I would argue you are not philosophically if you do not value 'keeping things the same'.

JM

[kentonio]

Why not have marriage and homo-union (or some other word)?

Seperate but equal? :P

While you might call yourself a conservative, I would argue you are not philosophically if you do not value 'keeping things the same'.

So the only true conservatives are the Amish?

[molly bloom]

Why is it that there were no Catholic priests in England - no heirarchy from 1550 to 1850 - over 300 years? It was only restored in 1850, when the priests were allowed to come back after Catholic Emancipation.

Hogwashery. As a historian, you make a great pig cleaner:

Catholic emancipation The failure to fulfil Pitt’s pledge on emancipation – under which Catholics would be able to sit in Parliament – also weakened the union almost from its birth.


The issue was kept alive by Henry Grattan, who returned to politics as MP for the English constituency of Malton, then from 1806-20 as one of the Members for the city of Dublin.

In May 1808 Grattan proposed emancipation in the House of Commons, with certain qualifications, but his motion was defeated by 281 votes to 128.

Catholic claims

In June 1812 the Commons accepted, by 225 votes to 106, a motion in favour of considering Catholic claims.

An emancipation Bill, introduced in February 1813, received a second reading but was lost in committee by a narrow margin.

Frustration at this lack of progress led to the formation of the Catholic Association in 1823. Parliament passed an Act to restrict the Association’s activities two years later.

Decisive election

The election of Daniel O’Connell in Clare - although as a Catholic he initially could not take his seat - proved decisive.

The House of Commons and the Cabinet were now convinced that action was necessary and the King’s Speech of February 1829 included a promise of Catholic relief.

A Bill was introduced in the Commons a month later. It passed through both Houses of Parliament with little trouble and received Royal Assent in April.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliamentandireland/overview/catholic-emancipation/

And a Catholic source for good measure:

In 1791 there followed another Act (31 George III, c. 32) far more extensive and far-reaching. By it there was again an oath to be taken, in character much like that of 1778, but including an engagement to support the Protestant Succession under the Act of Settlement (12 and 13 William III). No Catholic taking the oath was henceforward to be prosecuted for being a Papist, or for being educated in the Popish religion, or for hearing Mass or saying it, or for being a priest or deacon or for entering into, or belonging to, any ecclesiastical order or community in the Church of Rome, or for assisting at, or performing any Catholic rites or ceremonies. Catholics were no longer to be summoned to take the Oath of Supremacy, or to be removed from London; the legislation of George I, requiring them to register their estates and wills, was absolutely repealed; while the professions of counsellor and barrister at law, attorney, solicitor, and notary were opened to them. It was however provided that all their assemblies for religious worship should be certified at Quarter Sessions; that no person should officiate at such assembly until his name had been recorded by the Clerk of the Peace: that no such place of assembly should be locked or barred during the meeting; and that the building in which it was held, should not have a steeple or bell. The Relief Act of 1791 undoubtedly marked a great step in the removal of Catholic grievances...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13123a.htm

[Jon Miller]

Seperate but equal? :P

So the only true conservatives are the Amish?

Conserv vatives value keeping things the same. I didn't say they always keep things the same, just value doing so. Even the Orthodox change (slowly).

Yes, Amish is based on conservative thought.

Are husbands and wives equal? Or is the only way to be equal to strike the words/thoughts husband/wife from human mind/speech and replace with co-partner.

JM

[molly bloom]

I love how you denigrate my education while refusing to talk about yours. That really increases your credibility.

From the person who managed to confuse Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector and Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex in a discussion about the suppression of the monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII, that's really quite droll.

And somewhat ironic.

Thomas Cromwell, dates: 1485(?)-1540

Oliver Cromwell, dates: 1599-1658

[Zevico]

Everyone seems to be talking about gay marriage in this thread without much turning up.

For example, Gribbler glibly admitted to not having a clue about what Ben Kenobi was talking about and then concluded that Ben Kenobi hated gays and was a bigot. This does not make any sense. If you don't understand a person's views you can hardly conclude that the person is a bigot or, for that matter, the most tolerant person on earth. By definition you have no idea what that person is talking about.

And really, so far as that subject is concerned, the thread really hasn't improved since then. Everyone assumes BK is a bigot. No one actually takes the trouble to identify his argument for what it is and what it isn't. BK is the devil incarnate. Why not just burn the witch at the stake now and get it over with? What do we need a discussion of the subject for anyway? Everyone knows the right way of doing things even if they can't quite understand what the criticism of what way of doings is.

Criticism is just hate speech right? Ban it and jail all who disagree. That's the way of "nuanced" debate, designed for a flourishing democracy. What a disgrace.

Well, here's an actual analysis.

1. We don't make laws to validate people's desire for social acceptance. Marriage laws are instruments of public policy. Public policy does not require us to hand out certificates of Well-Being and Self-Esteem, certified by the State. The State does not need to certify that you are in a romantic form of love with someone else. If marriage were merely about romantic love there would be no need to make laws with respect to marriage.
2. Historically speaking, marriage has been between a man and a woman in the Western world. There are exceptions to this history. But the fact that something is historically common does not make it right or wrong, it just makes it common.
3. If we take a look at marriage laws there seem to be a few aspects to them. I list them in no particular order:

(i) Financial. The State tends to assume that married persons pool resources and it makes policy accordingly, e.g. for tax purposes.

(ii) Custodial disputes. Married persons generally have children or adopt. Marriage laws provide a starting point for disputes over care and custody of children in that they identify the persons who, prima facie, are the parents or step-parents of a child. But this is not so significant anymore, as gay parents and couples raise children.

It would be strange not to recognise the truth of such when dealing with disputes concerning the custody of children, and I think it ought to be recognised that children already often do have two gay non-biological parents. I think we can assume that, all other things being equal, it serves the interest of the state to ensure future access to those parents by that child is permitted, or required, much as in other custody disputes between heterosexual couples.

(iii) Social. The state accords the above rights, privileges and duties on persons to encourage them to associate in prescribed ways deemed beneficial to society. It seeks to promote the existence of heterosexual two person couplings simply because, historically speaking, a lot of single people leads to social and political strife and instability.

As can be seen this is but a precursor analysis to the thousands of laws on the books in various countries. These are complex laws with complex aims.

The arguments against and in favour of gay marriage seem to assume that all of the laws on the books with respect to (i)-(iii) above are all the same and all apply with equal force to gay couples in all circumstances.

Also, proponents of marriage laws wrongly assume that all of the laws that are affected by state recognition of married status have the character of a "right", when it is plain, for example, that tax laws concerned with cohabiting or married persons are not human rights in any meaningful sense of the word.

I would prefer a case-by-case examination of each law. Asking, on a case by case basis, whether a law appropriately recognises the existence of married persons (as they are now), and whether it should be extended to accord recognition to other classes of relationships just makes more sense. These incremental changes will make far more sense. The fact is that we would understand what we were doing with marriage laws of all kinds and why if we had a look at what their effects were in the financial, custodial and social senses, and then decided what to do accordingly. This does not mean that I am opposed to this or that change, but that, in my view, the entire subject deserves far more thought and attention than it is receiving.

To write impassionately about gay love being as good as straight love does not establish much at all once we understand that laws are not made to validate our feelings but to better our societies.

[Jon Miller]

I often disagree with Zevico, but he has listed arguments from a conservative perspective for extending marriage to include male-male and female-female relationships.

Conservatives are not necessarily bigots, unlike what many people here are maintaining.

Conservatives value 'keeping things the same', and to change require a solid argument (not 'why not?').

To say to conservatives 'bigot bigot bigot' is the same as saying to pro-choice people 'murderer murderer murderer' and shows a fundamental lack of understanding (I recognize that most pro-choice people do not see themselves as supporting murder).

Considering the evidence (risk taking genes/etc) that being a conservative is genetic (As well as social/etc), I think this is as terrible as being homophobic.

There is a fundamental difference between the liberal viewpoint (why not change?) and the conservative viewpoint (keep things the same), and it is the responsibility of both sides to understand the other. Not just the conservative viewpoint (one would argue that the liberal viewpoint has stronger tools to do this anyways?).

JM

[molly bloom]

Every faith that preaches that homosexuality is wrong is discriminated in Canada - it's not just Catholics, and Boissoin, and others have been targetted by the Human Rights Commission for expressing biblical teachings.

You have stated 'persecution' more than once, not 'discrimination'. Do you have access to a dictionary- hard copy or electronic, I'm not fussed.

Find the difference.

Also, in the Bible it states that the death penalty applies for various transgressions- do you think the State or Province has a right to protect vulnerable people from those who would preach or strive to apply such a punishment ?

[kentonio]

I often disagree with Zevico, but he has listed arguments from a conservative perspective for extending marriage to include male-male and female-female relationships.

Conservatives are not necessarily bigots, unlike what many people here are maintaining.

Conservatives value 'keeping things the same', and to change require a solid argument (not 'why not?').

To say to conservatives 'bigot bigot bigot' is the same as saying to pro-choice people 'murderer murderer murderer' and shows a fundamental lack of understanding (I recognize that most pro-choice people do not see themselves as supporting murder).

Considering the evidence (risk taking genes/etc) that being a conservative is genetic (As well as social/etc), I think this is as terrible as being homophobic.

There is a fundamental difference between the liberal viewpoint (why not change?) and the conservative viewpoint (keep things the same), and it is the responsibility of both sides to understand the other. Not just the conservative viewpoint (one would argue that the liberal viewpoint has stronger tools to do this anyways?).

JM

You're arguing that its ok to discriminate until such a time as those doing the discriminating are persuaded differently. We've been through the same tired old arguments when poor people demanded the right to vote, when women demanded the right to vote, when blacks demanded the same rights as whites, and every time it was achieved not by sitting waiting for the bigots to realize they were being bigots, but instead by a movement that refused to sit down and be quiet.

If you're acting like a bigot then you're going to get called on it, and no we don't give a **** about your hurt feelings. They don't matter when compared to people being treated like second class citizens because they were born different.

[Jon Miller]

How many preachers have you recently heard calling for the DP for sodomy/etc?

You can disagree with someone and still be tolerant of them.

JM

[Jon Miller]

You're arguing that its ok to discriminate until such a time as those doing the discriminating are persuaded differently. We've been through the same tired old arguments when poor people demanded the right to vote, when women demanded the right to vote, when blacks demanded the same rights as whites, and every time it was achieved not by sitting waiting for the bigots to realize they were being bigots, but instead by a movement that refused to sit down and be quiet.

If you're acting like a bigot then you're going to get called on it, and no we don't give a **** about your hurt feelings. They don't matter when compared to people being treated like second class citizens because they were born different.

Conservatives are a lot larger genetic/social group than homosexuals.

Why are you completely OK with discrimination and prejudice against conservatives while attacking the slightest thing that you can interpret as discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals?

JM

[kentonio]

Conservatives are a lot larger genetic/social group than homosexuals.

Why are you completely OK with discrimination and prejudice against conservatives while attacking the slightest thing that you can interpret as discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals?

JM

I find your line of argument nonsensical. Just to make sure I'm completely clear and not misunderstanding you, are you really suggesting that conservatives being offended by gay marriage is more important than gays actually being denied the right to marry?

[Ben Kenobi]

Find the difference.

What happened to Boissoin was persecution.

Also, in the Bible it states that the death penalty applies for various transgressions- do you think the State or Province has a right to protect vulnerable people from those who would preach or strive to apply such a punishment ?

We live under English common law, and English Common Law forbades that punishment.

That being said, I'm not sure where the Catholic church teaches that sodomy deserves the death penalty when they oppose the death penalty altogether.

[rah]

Is Kentino saying that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to marry. I must have missed something?

[MikeH]

Conserv vatives value keeping things the same. I didn't say they always keep things the same, just value doing so. Even the Orthodox change (slowly).

Yes, Amish is based on conservative thought.

Are husbands and wives equal? Or is the only way to be equal to strike the words/thoughts husband/wife from human mind/speech and replace with co-partner.

JM

you might want one word for married partner and one for unmarried partner. But yeah, no reason to make the distinction really.

I think all these word differences you are talking about are irrelevant when talking about whether a person doing the job of a preacher/priest/reverend should be allowed the job title of preacher/priest/reverend which is what I was addressing.

I would consider it a sign of progress even if you moved to saying they can be called a Priestette or a Preachess or something, then we can normalise the names later.

Normalising the names is happening, we now have police officers and firefighters rather than policemen and firemen, and that feels better. More representative of how things really are.