Hello everybody

[MikeH]

As I've already stated, I am not applying the term to people who have not had a chance to review and be persuaded by the evidence properly. So I'll ask the same question again, with that in mind.

[MikeH]

From Imran on Facebook:

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

So same sex marriage is a historical christian tradition. There you go conservatives, we're just going back to how it used to be.

[MikeH]

Because most of what they hear is 'bigot bigot bigot' or 'stupid' or "'change'". Which are mostly attacks, and the main argument isn't one that geared to persuade them.

JM

BTW the main argument = people of different sexualities should not be treated differently

Hard to disagree with that and not be a bigot isn't it?

[MikeH]

Look at the religious breakdown:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

It's a clear trend.

[MRT144]

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

So conservatives **** the bed over semantics but in fact want there to be equal rights afforded my legal partnership? This makes them even more small minded.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. He has that right. The problem is that entities like Ben (I don't want to take the word "persons" on my lips anymore when refering to him) want to infrange on the rights of everyone else.

Does anyone have the 'right' to get married? I can't demand that someone marry me, and no one is depriving me of a natural right by turning me down. Marriage doesn't work the same way that other things do, the state has said that there are certain circumstances (such as incest, or people being underage), where they can legally bar marriage. Not to mention, preventing people from getting married to more than one person.

All of these restrictions reinforce the principle that marriage is not a natural right, the same way that speech, or freedom of association.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not someone who'd fit in with the worst aspects of Roman Catholicism exhibited in the Spain of Torquemada....

Or, say, Good Queen Bess.

[Ben Kenobi]

homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century

Hrm? The article is long on hyperbole, and short on facts.

The first statement of a Church council on homosexual practices was issued by the Council of Elvira (305-306). The decree excludes from communion, even in articulo mortis (at the moment of death), the stupratores puerorum (corrupters of boys). The decree of the Council of Ancyra, held in Asia Minor in 314, strongly influenced the Church of the West, and it was often cited as authoritative in later enactments against homosexual practices. Canon 17 speaks about those “who . . . commit [acts of] defilement with animals or males.” The Council of Ancyra established for these crimes a series of punishments according to the age and state of life the infractor:

“Those who have committed such crimes before age twenty, after fifteen years of penance, will be readmitted to the communion of prayer. Then, after remaining five years in that communion, let them receive the sacraments of oblation. However, let their lives be analyzed to establish how long a period of penance they should sustain in order to obtain mercy. For if they unrestrainedly gave themselves over to these crimes, let them devote more time to doing penance. However, those aged twenty and over and married who fall into these crimes, let them do penance for twenty-five years and [then] be received in the communion of prayer; and, remaining in it for five years, let them finally receive the sacraments of oblation. Moreover, if those who are married and over fifty years of age commit these crimes, let them obtain the grace of communion only at the end of their lives.”

In the opening speech of the XVI Council of Toledo in 693, Egica, the Gothic King of Spain, exhorts the clergy to fight against homosexual practices: “See that you determine to extirpate that obscene crime committed by those who lie with males, whose fearful conduct defiles the charm of honest living and provokes from heaven the wrath of the Supreme Judge.”

The most complete set of norms against homosexual practices in the medieval era is contained in the canons approved at the Council of Naplouse, assembled on January 23, 1120 under the direction of Garmund, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Baldwin, King of the same city. On that occasion, a sermon was preached about the evils that had befallen the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Earthquakes, plagues, and attacks by the Saracens were judged as a punishment from Heaven for the sins of the people. As a consequence, the Council issued twenty-five canons against the sins of the flesh, four of which related to homosexual practices. Death at the stake was decreed for those convicted of those specific crimes.

Imran is quite wrong here.

[Ben Kenobi]

And everyone has a right to marriage.

Which is not the same thing as saying that everyone has the right to marry whomever they want. Surely you can see this, Jon? The state excludes certain persons from the list of those whom I can marry - those already married to someone else, those who are close in blood and those who are younger than the age of 16.

Your argument - insofar as I can see, is that we have a right to marry, ergo, depriving people from marrying someone that they love is depriving them of their right to be happy. This is wrong.

The problem is that the state will step in and say, no, you can't marry someone, even if you love them, if these other circumstances exist. Ergo, love doesn't conquer all, and love isn't enough to override the laws of the state.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Universalis Ecclesia proves me correct, as usual. Pius IX restored the English Hierarchy in 1850, after Catholic Emancipation, exactly as I said.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16037d.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married === interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Presupposes Homosexuality is a genetic trait. What evidence do you have for this contention?

[Jon Miller]

So conservatives **** the bed over semantics but in fact want there to be equal rights afforded my legal partnership? This makes them even more small minded.

You are small minded for not attempting to understand them.

JM

[notyoueither]

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

Why allow a minority to monopolise a term and legal concept?

Your definition of conservative better describes a reactionary.

Just so you know, there are conservatives who identify what is essential or most important to our societies and seek to protect those things while accepting that society will have to adjust as things change around and in us. The principles of doing unto others and equality before the law (two principles that I deem essential to any well functioning society) seem pertinent to the arguments for gay marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just so you know, there are conservatives who identify what is essential or most important to our societies and seek to protect those things while accepting that society will have to adjust as things change around and in us. The principles of doing unto others and equality before the law (two principles that I deem essential to any well functioning society) seem pertinent to the arguments for gay marriage.

How does this differentiate from a liberal. I'm interested in hearing this.

[notyoueither]

I understand why they might feel that way perfectly well. They want social acceptance and validation. But a desire for social acceptance and validation is not a reason to make a law. Social acceptance and validation occurs via society accepting that form of relationship, by definition. Not by legislation.Those who refuse to socially accept gays will do so whether or not we introduce a gay marriage law. Creating gay marriage laws to recognise love is a bit like a legislative command to turn back the tides, like the fairy tale of King Canute.

Actually, what we would be recognising is the human need to bond and extending legal protections and obligations to people who are not attracted to people of the opposite sex.

Furthermore, society as a whole benefits when there are more people in stable relationships than less.

Extending the benefits and obligations of marriage to homosexual couples benefits them and society.

Contrary to what you say, I'd say that disallowing same-sex marriage is the "legislative command to turn back the tides."