Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Edit: On the other hand it's important to get this done simply to get some real equal rights going.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
On June 28 2010 13:52 HaruHaru wrote: I'm for a form of "civil union" but i don't think they should call it marriage. Telling your kids that a man and a man can get married is just weird.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
I just want to chime in to say that whether or not marriage is 'useful' doesn't really have any relevance to the topic. I don't think anyone gets married because it is useful (save for gold diggers etc).
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
Alright I see what you saying. Thanks for explaining
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
It's not the same sex part that's useless, I think marriage as a whole is ridiculous, whether it be same sex or not.
If in a certain country, some government benefits are only possible to get through marriage, then ANY couple of two persons (or more for all I care) should be able to fill up some forms and bam, get their tax cuts or whatever.
If they want to be allowed to get married then they should. If they want to have a ceremony then they absolutely should. I think it's an aberration that they even had to fight for so long to get that.
I'm just saying, marriage is kind of silly. I brought this up this up to a friend and one of his points is that if someone is in the hospital for something serious and you've lived with that person for 5 years but you're not married, you'll still have trouble getting to visit them. This is, I guess, a reason to get married. It also shows some serious flaws in the system.
Marriage ain't useless, it gets you better rates for insurance and stuff (at the expense of some liberties, but what isn't a compromise nowadays). lol.
Haha, I'm for same sex marriage, let em do what they want to do - nothing wrong with it. Toronto has gotten to me, used to be opposed to this stuff (like when I was a middle school-er), well not strongly, but yeah... so immature back then.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
On June 28 2010 14:16 Djzapz wrote:If in a certain country, some government benefits are only possible to get through marriage, then ANY couple of two persons (or more for all I care) should be able to fill up some forms and bam, get their tax cuts or whatever.
Uh... why?
The only reason tax benefits are given out is to 'pay' for something that is being done for the state. If a marriage of type A is better for the state than a marriage of type B, the first type of marriage should receive better tax benefits.
On June 28 2010 14:16 Djzapz wrote:If in a certain country, some government benefits are only possible to get through marriage, then ANY couple of two persons (or more for all I care) should be able to fill up some forms and bam, get their tax cuts or whatever.
Uh... why?
The only reason tax benefits are given out is to 'pay' for something that is being done for the state. If a marriage of type A is better for the state than a marriage of type B, the first type of marriage should receive better tax benefits.
The only reason tax benefits are given out is to 'pay' for something that is being done for the state. If a marriage of type A is better for the state than a marriage of type B, the first type of marriage should receive better tax benefits.
Are you suggesting that the government could incentivize homosexuals to enter "productive" heterosexual marriages through tax breaks? Or merely that straight people should get tax breaks because of their more "productive" sexuality?
Seems your understanding of homosexuality is circa 1975. (see subsequent posts)
On June 28 2010 14:16 Djzapz wrote:If in a certain country, some government benefits are only possible to get through marriage, then ANY couple of two persons (or more for all I care) should be able to fill up some forms and bam, get their tax cuts or whatever.
Uh... why?
The only reason tax benefits are given out is to 'pay' for something that is being done for the state. If a marriage of type A is better for the state than a marriage of type B, the first type of marriage should receive better tax benefits.
Other than not having kids, I can't see a benefit straight marriage has over gay marriage in terms of providing for the state.
Sooo.... should we start fining the old people who married but never had children? What about if women have a tilted uterus or men are shooting blanks? How much privacy are we willing to invade here?
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
On June 28 2010 14:16 Djzapz wrote:If in a certain country, some government benefits are only possible to get through marriage, then ANY couple of two persons (or more for all I care) should be able to fill up some forms and bam, get their tax cuts or whatever.
Uh... why?
The only reason tax benefits are given out is to 'pay' for something that is being done for the state. If a marriage of type A is better for the state than a marriage of type B, the first type of marriage should receive better tax benefits.
Other than not having kids, I can't see a benefit straight marriage has over gay marriage in terms of providing for the state.
Sooo.... should we start fining the old people who married but never had children? What about if women have a tilted uterus or men are shooting blanks? How much privacy are we willing to invade here?
^ Listen to this guy. His posts are almost always good.
(If this is ever untrue, I take no responsibility)
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
One more thing on this issue: "marriage" is something between two people and their church / family / the marrying institution. It's only the bundle of rights and privileges that come with marriage that are government business at all. Proposing that the government can control whether people marry is like proposing that the government can control whether my favorite color is green. The government might be able to deny me some rights if I say my favorite color is green, but no law is going to change the fact that I like green. Similarly no law is going to change the fact that gay couples are married, and believe they are married, when they undergo a certain ceremony / make a commitment / whatever.
Put another way: you can't tell me that two people who commit to be together exclusively until the day they die (in a marriage ceremony) are "not married" simply because some elected dudes across the country said so. Any gay couple that's been married is married, the government can pretend they're not but that's farcical. The only real issues here are 1) will the government give that couple the rights a straight couple could have and 2) a purely cultural / political one: will the government sanction their marriage by referring to it as such.
This is why "civil unions" (answering yes to question 1 but no to question 2) are unsatisfying: a "civil union" scheme says "ok gays, you can have your rights, but just as a fuck you to you guys, we're not going to call it marriage. ppbbbbbbbbtttt." Seems like a really low, unnecessary, purely animus-motivated blow to gays: simply refusing to acknowledge that they are married.
On June 28 2010 14:40 JWD wrote: One more thing on this issue: "marriage" is something between two people and their church / family / the marrying institution. It's only the bundle of rights and privileges that come with marriage that are government business at all. Proposing that the government can control whether people marry is like proposing that the government can control whether my favorite color is green. The government might be able to deny me some rights if I say my favorite color is green, but no law is going to change the fact that I like green. Similarly no law is going to change the fact that gay couples are married, and believe they are married, when they undergo a certain ceremony / make a commitment / whatever.
Put another way: you can't tell me that two people who commit to be together exclusively until the day they die (in a marriage ceremony) are "not married" simply because some elected dudes across the country said so. Any gay couple that's been married is married, the government can pretend they're not but that's farcical. The only real issues here are 1) will the government give that couple the rights a straight couple could have and 2) a purely cultural / political one: will the government sanction their marriage by referring to it as such.
haha we almost posted the exact same thing at the same time.
Answers.
1. No they shouldn't, there shouldn't be any more or less rights for being married 2. No, the government needs to not be involved at all.
On June 28 2010 14:40 JWD wrote: One more thing on this issue: "marriage" is something between two people and their church / family / the marrying institution. It's only the bundle of rights and privileges that come with marriage that are government business at all. Proposing that the government can control whether people marry is like proposing that the government can control whether my favorite color is green. The government might be able to deny me some rights if I say my favorite color is green, but no law is going to change the fact that I like green. Similarly no law is going to change the fact that gay couples are married, and believe they are married, when they undergo a certain ceremony / make a commitment / whatever.
Put another way: you can't tell me that two people who commit to be together exclusively until the day they die (in a marriage ceremony) are "not married" simply because some elected dudes across the country said so. Any gay couple that's been married is married, the government can pretend they're not but that's farcical. The only real issues here are 1) will the government give that couple the rights a straight couple could have and 2) a purely cultural / political one: will the government sanction their marriage by referring to it as such.
haha we almost posted the exact same thing at the same time.
Answers.
1. No they shouldn't, there shouldn't be any more or less rights for being married 2. No, the government needs to not be involved at all.
I mean if I was rewriting our laws from scratch I'd answer as you did to question 2, but the unfortunate fact is that the US govt. already refers to couples as "married" for many legal purposes, and it would be a political nightmare to get it to come off that (can you imagine the reaction from religious loonies if the government said "ok, to be fair to everyone we are now calling your marriage a civil union"? It'd be feeding them the shit sandwich they're trying to serve gays). So given that "marriage" is already in the books, we should just use the term to refer to both homo and hetero couples.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, but I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, but I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Just wondering, but could you explain further about how you feel it would affect the children?
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
On June 28 2010 14:58 Whiplash wrote: GJ Iceland, maybe we'll see this all around the USA sometime in the future if we can keep the fanatics from causing too much of a ruckus in politics!
It's really only a matter of time. This is one of those issues like segregation, voting for women: we just have to wait for enough backwards people to die and then we'll have the law that makes sense.
I mean just look at this LOL, even 18-29 year olds in WEST VIRGINIA are majority in favor of same sex marriage.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
I was wasting time web surfing while you basically responded for me.
A little addition I would like to make though. Even if there was evidence that a child being brought up with homosexual parents showed that they were some how hindered in development or faced some hardships I still don't think it would be a good reason to stop it. I imagine interracial couples adopting or having children and those children could have a harder time growing up. I'm quite sure this is something you have familiarity with. And as for myself I've dealt with it (half Chinese half Caucasian), growing up and not feeling a part of certain groups. Or being part of a group but not completely, such as hanging out with Chinese peers but not knowing the language myself.
Unless there is abuse or neglect of the children going on I don't see why children should be denied to someone.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
I was wasting time web surfing while you basically responded for me.
A little addition I would like to make though. Even if there was evidence that a child being brought up with homosexual parents showed that they were some how hindered in development or faced some hardships I still don't think it would be a good reason to stop it. I imagine interracial couples adopting or having children and those children could have a harder time growing up. I'm quite sure this is something you have familiarity with. And as for myself I've dealt with it (half Chinese half Caucasian), growing up and not feeling a part of certain groups. Or being part of a group but not completely, such as hanging out with Chinese peers but not knowing the language myself.
Unless there is abuse or neglect of the children going on I don't see why children should be denied to someone.
Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly.
Yes there was a time when giving rights to interracial couples gave people the heeby-jeebies too.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
I strongly disagree that this is a minor issue. It's far and away the biggest civil rights issue in America today, and hotly contested if you consider older voters.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
I strongly disagree that this is a minor issue. It's far and away the biggest civil rights issue in America today, and still very polarizing if you consider older voters.
I don't mean the gay rights issue. I mean the changing "marriage" to "households" in all current legislation issue.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
I never said or implied inferior.
I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional.
To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population.
Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
edit -
Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly.
I don't think the race analogy is spot on at all. A person's race does not affect behaviour while a person's sexual orientation does.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue.
I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue.
I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue.
I personally do believe that the government shouldn't put its nose in marriages and stuff. "It's in the constitution so we're screwed" is something we'll have to accept until people start thinking properly.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
I never said or implied inferior.
I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional.
To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population.
Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
Oh sorry Mani, I should have clarified that I didn't suspect you were even suggesting that homosexual parents are inferior. I merely wrote that line because it seemed relevant to the discussion here.
I understand what you are saying, that it's difficult to understand how exactly parenting in a homosexual household would play out. My two cents on that is that I think it's completely acceptable to be unsure of, or even uncomfortable about, something but realize that allowing that thing is the right policy choice.
For example I am somewhat concerned about the health of children of parents who are morbidly obese and have very unhealthy lifestyles. It makes me uncomfortable to think of parents allowing their kids to watch TV 10 hours a day and eat nothing but fast food, it really does. Kind of gross. But, for policy reasons that are completely unrelated to this uncomfortable feeling, I realize that morbidly obese people with unhealthy lifestyles should be allowed to raise children.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue.
I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue.
I personally do believe that the government shouldn't put its nose in marriages and stuff. "It's in the constitution so we're screwed" is something we'll have to accept until people start thinking properly.
Conversely, I believe they should because marriage is helpful in creating productive citizens (given all the sociological data about children of married couples to single parents, etc etc). As such, the government promoting it through giving it financial benefits compared to single people is beneficial to our society. On the other hand, I don't believe households really differentiates between a married couple and a single person. =/
My 2 cents is that marriage has always been officially defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. The primary purpose of this is 1) the procreation and raising of children, and 2) mutual comfort between the man and wife.
The problem with same sex "marriage" is that it competely rewrites the definition, and does not allow for the primary purpose, since a homosexual relationship is completely sterile.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
I never said or implied inferior.
I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional.
To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population.
Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly.
I don't think the race analogy is spot on at all. A person's race does not affect behaviour while a person's sexual orientation does.
The race analogy is spot on in many ways, I suppose I should have said. For one, the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement are progressing almost identically. We have some states granting gays marriage rights earlier, some states holding out or even passing anti-gay laws. We have a Supreme Court and a Congress that is slowly beginning to grapple with sexual orientation discrimination. We have steadily mounting public support for gay rights, we have protests and we have a sense, amongst those involved in the movement, that in 30 years we will look back on anti-gay policies and see them as archaic and backwards.
And while homosexuality certainly does influence behavior, you could make a strong argument that race does as well (isn't racism just race influencing behavior, for example?). But more importantly, on the issue of childrearing at least, homosexuality might certainly influence behavior (parenting) but we have to ask ourselves how? Without some proof that the influence is a negative one, it can't concern us as would-be policymakers. My point is: just as we should allow couples of all race combinations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' race does not negatively influence childrearing, we should allow couples of all sexual orientations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' sexual orientation does not negatively influence childrearing. That's the sense in which the race analogy is spot on.
Furthermore if you traveled back 100 years or so, you would find opponents of interracial marriage and interracial couple childrearing making many, many identical arguments to those that opponents of gay marriage and gay childrearing are making today. It's quite striking.
On June 28 2010 15:24 Belegorm wrote: My 2 cents is that marriage has always been officially defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. The primary purpose of this is 1) the procreation and raising of children, and 2) mutual comfort between the man and wife.
The problem with same sex "marriage" is that it competely rewrites the definition, and does not allow for the primary purpose, since a homosexual relationship is completely sterile.
Hmm, I disagree with the primary purpose, but only parts of it. For 1, procreation is not necessary. Otherwise, as people have pointed out, people who are sterile should also not be allowed to marry. That is not the case! I do agree with the raising of children part, but JWD has already spoken about that. Also, the mutual comfort need not be between man and wife unless you're implying that a homosexual couple could not also reach this level of comfort? Therefore, despite rewriting the definition of marriage (which we have done before, see interracial marriages), it still maintains its main purpose of raising children. In fact, I believe it helps that purpose as now, instead of having 2 single people who cannot share expenses, get marriage tax benefits, maybe not even adopt, etc, we have a married couple who can provide an economically stable environment for a child.
On June 28 2010 14:28 JWD wrote:Are you suggesting that the government could incentivize homosexuals to enter "productive" heterosexual marriages through tax breaks?
I'm suggesting that the state is perfectly justified in incentivizing one kind of marriage over another. There's no justifiable way for them to further incentivize it for homosexuals, so no, I'm not suggesting that.
Or merely that straight people should get tax breaks because of their more "productive" sexuality?
Thats more like it.
Seems your understanding of homosexuality is circa 1975.
Seems your understanding of tax benefits and their role is circa 1066.
On June 28 2010 14:28 JWD wrote:Are you suggesting that the government could incentivize homosexuals to enter "productive" heterosexual marriages through tax breaks?
I'm suggesting that the state is perfectly justified in incentivizing one kind of marriage over another. There's no justifiable way for them to further incentivize it for homosexuals, so no, I'm not suggesting that.
Or merely that straight people should get tax breaks because of their more "productive" sexuality?
Thats more like it.
I understand your position quite a bit better now, but I think you need to consider the big-picture ramifications of policy like this. For example, surely SAT score would be a better proxy for childrearing ability than sexual orientation. Why not only give marriage-related tax breaks to intelligent couples?
Or to use a more trite example: along this line of reasoning you must agree that the government should not give marriage-related tax benefits to sterile couples, or couples that merely do not want children.
On June 28 2010 15:32 JWD wrote:I understand your position quite a bit better now, but I think you need to consider the big-picture ramifications of policy like this. For example, surely SAT score would be a better proxy for childrearing ability. Why not only give marriage-related tax breaks to intelligent couples?
You'll find I'd actually be in favor of that as well, if it was done right.
I'm consistent, even if I'm rarely popular :>
[edit] Not, mind you, that childrearing is the only thing I have ever heard mentioned as a reason for tax benefits for marriage, although its certainly the biggest and most obvious one.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue.
I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue.
I personally do believe that the government shouldn't put its nose in marriages and stuff. "It's in the constitution so we're screwed" is something we'll have to accept until people start thinking properly.
Conversely, I believe they should because marriage is helpful in creating productive citizens (given all the sociological data about children of married couples to single parents, etc etc). As such, the government promoting it through giving it financial benefits compared to single people is beneficial to our society. On the other hand, I don't believe households really differentiates between a married couple and a single person. =/
I don't believe that marriage is helpful in creating productive citizen. Look at Japan, those people are EXTREMELY career oriented and they don't get married as much as we do. Their productivity is by far higher than ours.
And financially helping couples is almost certainly good idea so I would say why not just make "couples" do some paperwork to get whatever tax cuts based on whatever criteria. They need to live together - it's based on their income, the amount of kids, whatever.
So you can have your marriage ceremony completely separate from whatever ties you have with your government.
On June 28 2010 15:32 JWD wrote:I understand your position quite a bit better now, but I think you need to consider the big-picture ramifications of policy like this. For example, surely SAT score would be a better proxy for childrearing ability. Why not only give marriage-related tax breaks to intelligent couples?
You'll find I'd actually be in favor of that as well, if it was done right.
I'm consistent, even if I'm rarely popular :>
haha ok I follow now. There is some method to your madness unrealistic though.
I took a class in college on Sexuality and Culture, and the professor brought in a panel of gay parents and one of them brought his kid. When asked questions from the student body, it seemed that the kid of the gay parent (now a teen) was completely normal, aside from the fact that she was more open-minded than her counterparts that were raised by straight parents. As a little kid, she knew that she and her sister were being raised in a different environment, but they accepted it because her dads still made them happy, and cared for them and loved them. She said that she was completely straight, but that her sister was lesbian and was very comfortable when coming out.
It seems to me that it's about time that same sex marriage is disallowed, but I also believe same-sex adoption is good thing as well. I've always believed that sexual orientation is very heavily based on biology and much less on social development (a lot of research suggests this as well), and that allowing adoption for same sex couples can only help children who are in need of parents.
Don't want to sound like a broken record here, but those are some really well thought-out posts, JWD. Couldn't have said it better, or even have come close to that articulation.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
I don't dislike marriage, I hope you aren't getting that impression. I actually hope to be married one day. And your description of what marriage should be I agree with. Unfortunately, marriage doesn't really tend to be that way sometimes, in my opinion. I feel many people marry for a reason that is not really beneficial to society. Some people get married, I think, without the intent of really raising children. I think it's the idea/plan of raising that really contribute to those societal ties, not so much the couple themselves. Because, what is a couple with no children to society? I mean, I guess I'm not seeing it. But the thing is, I see marriage as something pertaining to raising kids, so we really aren't disagreeing I think.
Although I never really saw it as a union of two families, which is a missed observation, to be sure.
And I'm not disagreeing to the usefulness of the state-sanctioned aspects of marriage, that's why I mentioned that I'm talking about marriage in and of itself. And I always contributed gifts and such to the marriage, although that was definitely faulty on my part, because yeah, that's more of a ceremonial thing at the wedding, if it happens. And I wasn't complaining, I can't even see how I was implying any complaint.
I'm not bitter or annoyed at the idea of marriage without intent of raising family, my personal opinion is just that I wouldn't do it if I weren't going to have children.
On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote: In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all. Why this is the best solution. 1. Allows people to define marriage however they want. 2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want. 3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_>
Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect.
Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue.
I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue.
I personally do believe that the government shouldn't put its nose in marriages and stuff. "It's in the constitution so we're screwed" is something we'll have to accept until people start thinking properly.
Conversely, I believe they should because marriage is helpful in creating productive citizens (given all the sociological data about children of married couples to single parents, etc etc). As such, the government promoting it through giving it financial benefits compared to single people is beneficial to our society. On the other hand, I don't believe households really differentiates between a married couple and a single person. =/
I don't believe that marriage is helpful in creating productive citizen. Look at Japan, those people are EXTREMELY career oriented and they don't get married as much as we do. Their productivity is by far higher than ours.
And financially helping couples is almost certainly good idea so I would say why not just make "couples" do some paperwork to get whatever tax cuts based on whatever criteria. They need to live together - it's based on their income, the amount of kids, whatever.
So you can have your marriage ceremony completely separate from whatever ties you have with your government.
But see, there are more things that affect the productivity gap than simply "we have more marriages than them." There are cultural differences in the attitude toward education and what not. Idk, but I'm guessing Mani can speak about that much better than I can, lol. Also, Japan has a lower divorce rate :p. Maybe more stable families are helping their child development?
And I honestly can't say about financially helping all couples. I have never thought about that, hahaha. Currently, I'm thinking Hollywood couples would make that kind of moot, but so does marriage. Idk, what makes them count as a couple? What is the criteria? How does it stop? etc.
On the last point, you can keep marriage ceremonies separate anyway. That's why there are all sorts of marriage ceremonies which all provide the couple with the same benefits under the law. It's not completely separate, but the ceremony has no relation to the benefits you receive by getting a marriage license aside from the fact that both uses "marriage."
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
I never said or implied inferior.
I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional.
To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population.
Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
edit -
Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly.
I don't think the race analogy is spot on at all. A person's race does not affect behaviour while a person's sexual orientation does.
And while homosexuality certainly does influence behavior, you could make a strong argument that race does as well (isn't racism just race influencing behavior, for example?). But more importantly, on the issue of childrearing at least, homosexuality might certainly influence behavior (parenting) but we have to ask ourselves how? Without some proof that the influence is a negative one, it can't concern us as would-be policymakers. My point is: just as we should allow couples of all race combinations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' race does not negatively influence childrearing, we should allow couples of all sexual orientations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' sexual orientation does not negatively influence childrearing. That's the sense in which the race analogy is spot on.
I am not out to deprive people of rights, so from a policy point of view gay couples can adopt children.
That being said, race has no bearing on behaviour. Culture and society does, and they react to race, but you can take a child of any race, put them in any other society at birth, and they will adopt the behaviours and language of the society they are raised in flawlessly and without fail. An African taken at birth to live in Japan will not retain any African behavioural traits.
However, as a parent, I cannot understand the paternal or maternal needs of a homosexual. Because I cannot understand that, I am at odds on how to deal with this issue. This is the difference between race and orientation that I think you are linking too closely, and where I see the difference.
I'm not sure how you have a difficult time understanding why homosexuals wouldn't have the wantings to care for a child. Humans have been adopting children from completely outside of their blood and making it work for thousands of years. Even animals adopt - even homosexual animals; and animals also adopt young beings that are outside of their species, not unlike how we humans have endearing relationships with pets.
If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals.
On June 28 2010 15:45 RageOverdose wrote: I don't dislike marriage, I hope you aren't getting that impression. I actually hope to be married one day. And your description of what marriage should be I agree with. Unfortunately, marriage doesn't really tend to be that way sometimes, in my opinion. I feel many people marry for a reason that is not really beneficial to society. Some people get married, I think, without the intent of really raising children. I think it's the idea/plan of raising that really contribute to those societal ties, not so much the couple themselves. Because, what is a couple with no children to society? I mean, I guess I'm not seeing it. But the thing is, I see marriage as something pertaining to raising kids, so we really aren't disagreeing I think.
I don't think we are disagreeing either. But a couple of people who marry and do not have kids still support each other in their old age. I think there is benefit to that.
Although I never really saw it as a union of two families, which is a missed observation, to be sure.
Nobody lives in a vacuum.
I'm not bitter or annoyed at the idea of marriage without intent of raising family, my personal opinion is just that I wouldn't do it if I weren't going to have children.
Might be nice to have someone to play cribbage with when you get old
Where did you find this marriage clause in the constitution i would like to know?
There is a simple way of changing the law, the supreme court says "marriage has too many different meanings to be defined by the US government therefore it cannot be legislated and therefore all laws regarding marriage are not valid in that respect".
On June 28 2010 15:52 koreasilver wrote: I'm not sure how you have a difficult time understanding why homosexuals wouldn't have the wantings to care for a child. Humans have been adopting children from completely outside of their blood and making it work for thousands of years. Even animals adopt - even homosexual animals; and animals also adopt young beings that are outside of their species, not unlike how we humans have endearing relationships with pets.
If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals.
I don't see the connection between "children who are not blood" and homosexuality. Those seem like two completely different issues to me.
Obviously there are homosexuals who want to be parents, otherwise this would be a moot issue. I am not denying it exists, and I am not out to prevent anyone from it. I think a loving home is the most important thing, and if someone can create that loving home with a homosexual partner, then all the power to them.
What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
Good right up until the end I think.
Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way?
It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation.
Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
I never said or implied inferior.
I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional.
To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population.
Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
edit -
Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly.
I don't think the race analogy is spot on at all. A person's race does not affect behaviour while a person's sexual orientation does.
And while homosexuality certainly does influence behavior, you could make a strong argument that race does as well (isn't racism just race influencing behavior, for example?). But more importantly, on the issue of childrearing at least, homosexuality might certainly influence behavior (parenting) but we have to ask ourselves how? Without some proof that the influence is a negative one, it can't concern us as would-be policymakers. My point is: just as we should allow couples of all race combinations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' race does not negatively influence childrearing, we should allow couples of all sexual orientations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' sexual orientation does not negatively influence childrearing. That's the sense in which the race analogy is spot on.
I am not out to deprive people of rights, so from a policy point of view gay couples can adopt children.
That being said, race has no bearing on behaviour. Culture and society does, and they react to race, but you can take a child of any race, put them in any other society at birth, and they will adopt the behaviours and language of the society they are raised in flawlessly and without fail. An African taken at birth to live in Japan will not retain any African behavioural traits.
However, as a parent, I cannot understand the paternal or maternal needs of a homosexual. Because I cannot understand that, I am at odds on how to deal with this issue. This is the difference between race and orientation that I think you are linking too closely, and where I see the difference.
I'm not really sure what behavioral differences you might be talking about. The only thing I can think of is that gay men are sexually attracted to men, and thus their different behavior would include same sex intercourse. Same deal for women.
I'm not sure why a sexual attraction would have any bearing on maternal/paternal needs/feelings. It would be like puzzling over whether or not the shoe fetishist across the street truly feels the same way about parenting as I do.
Gay people come in all shapes, sizes, degrees of bisexuality, colors, personalities, etc, just like any straight person. If a gay person says, I want to raise an adopted (or otherwise) child because I want to be a parent, it means the exact same thing as when a straight person says it.
edit: I see your post above. You've got it about right I think. There are gay people that want to have children that cannot do so on their own, sucks, but that's how it is. Also, these discussions never seem to mention couples that actually do have children through forms other than adoption. Either through medical procedures or naturally with the help of a willing surrogate or sperm donor. So in those cases generally 1 parent would be blood related.
On June 28 2010 15:52 koreasilver wrote: I'm not sure how you have a difficult time understanding why homosexuals wouldn't have the wantings to care for a child. Humans have been adopting children from completely outside of their blood and making it work for thousands of years. Even animals adopt - even homosexual animals; and animals also adopt young beings that are outside of their species, not unlike how we humans have endearing relationships with pets.
If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals.
I don't see the connection between "children who are not blood" and homosexuality. Those seem like two completely different issues to me.
Obviously there are homosexuals who want to be parents, otherwise this would be a moot issue. I am not denying it exists, and I am not out to prevent anyone from it. I think a loving home is the most important thing, and if someone can create that loving home with a homosexual partner, then all the power to them.
What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate.
I don't understand why the ability to procreate must be such a fundamental part of nurturing a child. There is nothing lesser about raising a child that is not of your blood.
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
My nephew was raised by same-sex parents. He's by all accounts a normal kid. Didn't take too long to reconcile the whole two mothers thing, either. It surely will change his experience subtly in the long run, just like any other kid is influenced by their parent's ideals, but from my limited experience there's nothing that makes him some aberration of society just because he was raised by a same-sex couple.
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
Funnily enough, most states already allow marriage between cousins. If I remember correctly, Florida allows first cousin marriages and there are no laws against bestiality... but gay marriage is constitutionally banned.
On June 28 2010 15:52 koreasilver wrote: I'm not sure how you have a difficult time understanding why homosexuals wouldn't have the wantings to care for a child. Humans have been adopting children from completely outside of their blood and making it work for thousands of years. Even animals adopt - even homosexual animals; and animals also adopt young beings that are outside of their species, not unlike how we humans have endearing relationships with pets.
If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals.
What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate.
Well I'm going to assume that this is what you mean with the "paternal and maternal feelings of a homosexual".
And yes, it is nature's cruel joke towards gay people. Although they technically aren't able to have kids, the theorized purpose of homosexuals from an evolutionary standpoint is to help pass on the genes of their relatives--and this is through sharing ''parental'' responsibilities with relatives because of their inability to naturally conceive their own children.
It's what's known as "kin selection" and the wikipedia entry sums it up nicely: Some organisms tend to exhibit strategies that favor the reproductive success of their relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, with sterile females acting as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring. Many evolutionary biologists explain this by the theory of kin selection.
There are actually even studies showing that the female relatives of gay men also happen to be more fecund, which accounts for gays not having children, and would help to further cement the theory that this is an alternative, albeit less common, strategy of passing on one's genes.
So yes, you could even make the argument that gay couples would probably have more of an urge to take care of children other than their own.
Unfortunately everyone has an opinion about this topic. Even more unfortunate, there are a lot of uneducated people out there that merely go on what their slightly homophobic parents teach them (or don't) ((Also I'm not inferring that all people who disagree with gay marriage are uneducated)). I know plenty of people who aren't discriminate but still use words like "fag" "queer" etc with a negative connotation. They don't say it because they think it's negative, they say it because other people say it. I really wish this was a moot topic and everyone can just love freely (People already can, just the whole legality thing regarding the institution of marriage). That sounded hippyish but I believe it :O
On June 28 2010 16:04 Manifesto7 wrote: What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate.
The way I view this is that gay couples are no different to couples who can't reproduce for biological reason, such as impotency. Being unable to have children doesn't take away the urge to, and parental instincts exist regardless of if the child is biologically theirs or not. If nature is playing a cruel joke on gay people then it's also a joke on straight but impotent people. Things like adoption allow for couple who otherwise can't have kids to take care of children who would otherwise grow up in orphanages or raised by crackheads, and like someone above mentioned, there is a vastly underused proportion of the population whose parental instincts are going to waste because they are gay.
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects.
Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects.
Eugenics won't last, i have to agree on the slippery slope argument. Once gay marriage is legalized, other types of marriages will be discussed. Polygamy, incest, group marriage, etc will come into question. A theory i have is that the mormon church is intentionally forcing the issue on gay marriage in order to promote polygamy. Eventually I think this will force the issue on the legislation of marriage as a whole and hopefully the government decides that it is not smart enough to know what the definition is. :p
omninmo's comment was that if you legalized gay marriage, then you'd have to legalize incest. Those are two different things. The marriage of close relatives is a slippery slope, I agree.
But allowing incest introduces the risk of bringing genetically mutated people into this world without their consent, and that's a bit concerning to me. If you allow incest, then whose to say that it's wrong of a person to drink alcohol or smoke while pregnant. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and gay marriage is well before that mark.
On June 28 2010 16:46 Masamune wrote: omninmo's comment was that if you legalized gay marriage, then you'd have to legalize incest. Those are two different things. The marriage of close relatives is a slippery slope, I agree.
But allowing incest introduces the risk of bringing genetically mutated people into this world without their consent, and that's a bit concerning to me. If you allow incest, then whose to say that it's wrong of a person to drink alcohol or smoke while pregnant. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and gay marriage is well before that mark.
Well, it stems from the idea that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual preferences. However, it has been shown that gay sex is very dangerous health risk. So the eugenics argument against homosexual marriage is ignored, yet at the same time, incest marriage or polygamous marriage also has health risks and they would claim they also have a right and they say the eugenics argument is also invalid. The question then becomes, at what point does marriage end? Today its between a man and a woman, tomorrow its between two people who are not related, next year its between three or more people, the year after its between family members, the year after it includes communes. Redefining it begs the question as to the correct definition. My argument is that its impossible to define by a single person and that government should not be responsible for defining it at all. (
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects.
Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects.
Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... In the end every argument that pro-gay marriage lobbies use can also be used to support polygamy. If marriage by it's definition is a union between 'two people' and 'a man and a woman'. How can you say that the 'man and a woman' part is flawed and not the 'two people' part? Who's to say later that 'marriage' can't be between a woman and a dog/cat (bestiality). If you let a man marry a dog... incest marriages don't seem that wrong, do they?
On June 28 2010 16:46 Masamune wrote: omninmo's comment was that if you legalized gay marriage, then you'd have to legalize incest. Those are two different things. The marriage of close relatives is a slippery slope, I agree.
But allowing incest introduces the risk of bringing genetically mutated people into this world without their consent, and that's a bit concerning to me. If you allow incest, then whose to say that it's wrong of a person to drink alcohol or smoke while pregnant. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and gay marriage is well before that mark.
Read the bold. As I said above, incestuous marriage is more of a slippery slope.
Also, I'm failing to see what eugenics has to do with gay marriage.
However, it has been shown that gay sex is very dangerous health risk
Heterosexuals also have anal sex, so you could apply this to them as well. In fact, anal sex is not as common among homosexuals as you would think, and some researchers even believe that its prevalence is higher among heterosexual couples.
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects.
Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects.
Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... In the end every argument that pro-gay marriage lobbies use can also be used to support polygamy. If marriage by it's definition is a union between 'two people' and 'a man and a woman'. How can you say that the 'man and a woman' part is flawed and not the 'two people' part? Who's to say later that 'marriage' can't be between a woman and a dog/cat (bestiality). If you let a man marry a dog... incest marriages don't seem that wrong, do they?
Um.... first of all you can't marry a dog because the dog doesn't give consensual agreement . Not only that, but if you wanted to have intercourse with a dog.... that's just frickin creepy. Also, marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament, and alot of the reasons I know people are against same-sex marriage is not because they're homophobic or something, but that it's intruding upon the religion of a man if he is to be forced to offer a marriage to a same-sex couple.
So basically the counter argument to this would be that polygamy and same-sex marriage is against the Christian marriage, upon which "legal" marriages are based upon. That's why alot of bills especially offer not marriage, but civil unionis. This way, they, at least should, have the same rights as a marriage would offfer, but the priest/religious figure doesn't have to perform it. Anyway, just my opinion.
On June 28 2010 17:13 fox[tail] wrote: Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem...
Sibling couples have just 25 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem...
On June 28 2010 16:46 Masamune wrote: omninmo's comment was that if you legalized gay marriage, then you'd have to legalize incest. Those are two different things. The marriage of close relatives is a slippery slope, I agree.
But allowing incest introduces the risk of bringing genetically mutated people into this world without their consent, and that's a bit concerning to me. If you allow incest, then whose to say that it's wrong of a person to drink alcohol or smoke while pregnant. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and gay marriage is well before that mark.
Read the bold. As I said above, incestuous marriage is more of a slippery slope.
Also, I'm failing to see what eugenics has to do with gay marriage.
However, it has been shown that gay sex is very dangerous health risk
Heterosexuals also have anal sex, so you could apply this to them as well. In fact, anal sex is not as common among homosexuals as you would think, and some researchers even believe that its prevalence is higher among heterosexual couples.
Eugenics in marriage has to do with the belief that environment and genes can adversely affect human development and that we should prevent certain types of marriage for medical purposes.
Difference between marriage and gay marriage has to do with the the sex of the partners involved. Incest marriage has to do with the relation of the partners involved, polygamy has to do with the numbers involved. These questions will come up.
On June 28 2010 17:13 fox[tail] wrote: Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem...
Sibling couples have just 25 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem...
It's not really a problem for the first-generation inbreds. (Having kids when you're past 35 is a greater risk of birth defects than incest, IIRC. Although presumably they stack.) The main damage comes from multiple generations of inbreeding.
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects.
Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects.
Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... In the end every argument that pro-gay marriage lobbies use can also be used to support polygamy. If marriage by it's definition is a union between 'two people' and 'a man and a woman'. How can you say that the 'man and a woman' part is flawed and not the 'two people' part? Who's to say later that 'marriage' can't be between a woman and a dog/cat (bestiality). If you let a man marry a dog... incest marriages don't seem that wrong, do they?
Um.... first of all you can't marry a dog because the dog doesn't give consensual agreement . Not only that, but if you wanted to have intercourse with a dog.... that's just frickin creepy. Also, marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament, and alot of the reasons I know people are against same-sex marriage is not because they're homophobic or something, but that it's intruding upon the religion of a man if he is to be forced to offer a marriage to a same-sex couple.
So basically the counter argument to this would be that polygamy and same-sex marriage is against the Christian marriage, upon which "legal" marriages are based upon. That's why alot of bills especially offer not marriage, but civil unionis. This way, they, at least should, have the same rights as a marriage would offfer, but the priest/religious figure doesn't have to perform it. Anyway, just my opinion.
I remember watching an episode of Judge Judy a long time ago, and this couple was arguing who gets custody of a dog. Judy came up with the idea: 'let the dog chose', basically the dog would go to whichever 'parent' it loved most... Hey if that shit could pass in a court of television law why can't they use the same 'test' to see if the dog wants to get married? They only sexual 'bond' that i can think of now that could not require 'consent' in any way is necrophilia (unless a person gives consent before they die) I agree with you, marriage is a religious thing with a deeper meaning, maybe there should be a new word or union made up for homosexual, polygamist, incestuous or whatever is thought up of as needing rights next... Like: gayiagge or homoiagge
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects.
Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects.
Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... In the end every argument that pro-gay marriage lobbies use can also be used to support polygamy. If marriage by it's definition is a union between 'two people' and 'a man and a woman'. How can you say that the 'man and a woman' part is flawed and not the 'two people' part? Who's to say later that 'marriage' can't be between a woman and a dog/cat (bestiality). If you let a man marry a dog... incest marriages don't seem that wrong, do they?
Um.... first of all you can't marry a dog because the dog doesn't give consensual agreement . Not only that, but if you wanted to have intercourse with a dog.... that's just frickin creepy. Also, marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament, and alot of the reasons I know people are against same-sex marriage is not because they're homophobic or something, but that it's intruding upon the religion of a man if he is to be forced to offer a marriage to a same-sex couple.
So basically the counter argument to this would be that polygamy and same-sex marriage is against the Christian marriage, upon which "legal" marriages are based upon. That's why alot of bills especially offer not marriage, but civil unionis. This way, they, at least should, have the same rights as a marriage would offfer, but the priest/religious figure doesn't have to perform it. Anyway, just my opinion.
I remember watching an episode of Judge Judy a long time ago, and this couple was arguing who gets custody of a dog. Judy came up with the idea: 'let the dog chose', basically the dog would go to whichever 'parent' it loved most... Hey if that shit could pass in a court of television law why can't they use the same 'test' to see if the dog wants to get married? They only sexual 'bond' that i can think of now that could not require 'consent' in any way is necrophilia (unless a person gives consent before they die) I agree with you, marriage is a religious thing with a deeper meaning, maybe there should be a new word or union made up for homosexual, polygamist, incestuous or whatever is thought up of as needing rights next... Like: gayiagge or homoiagge
Rofl the parent could have easily swayed the dog if they had scent of food. Such a test to "prove" who the dog loves most is futile, and could only have been thought of by Judge Judy. Ah Judge Judy, you make me laugh
Also, I agree with Marmamuse(sp?). Could the involved person clarify on how eugenics is exactly involved in same-sex couples.
On June 28 2010 14:40 JWD wrote: One more thing on this issue: "marriage" is something between two people and their church / family / the marrying institution. It's only the bundle of rights and privileges that come with marriage that are government business at all. Proposing that the government can control whether people marry is like proposing that the government can control whether my favorite color is green. The government might be able to deny me some rights if I say my favorite color is green, but no law is going to change the fact that I like green. Similarly no law is going to change the fact that gay couples are married, and believe they are married, when they undergo a certain ceremony / make a commitment / whatever.
Put another way: you can't tell me that two people who commit to be together exclusively until the day they die (in a marriage ceremony) are "not married" simply because some elected dudes across the country said so. Any gay couple that's been married is married, the government can pretend they're not but that's farcical. The only real issues here are 1) will the government give that couple the rights a straight couple could have and 2) a purely cultural / political one: will the government sanction their marriage by referring to it as such.
This is why "civil unions" (answering yes to question 1 but no to question 2) are unsatisfying: a "civil union" scheme says "ok gays, you can have your rights, but just as a fuck you to you guys, we're not going to call it marriage. ppbbbbbbbbtttt." Seems like a really low, unnecessary, purely animus-motivated blow to gays: simply refusing to acknowledge that they are married.
Also in response to this, this is a well thought out argument but I see some problems with this. In the first paragraph, when saying that the governement can't say whether your favorite color is green, I'd say the government can say whatever it wants. The government just doesn't have the right to decide about this matter. Do you think the government has the right to order a priest to offer a religious function that goes against what his religion tells him to? No! Not everyone who is against same sex marriage is homophobic. You said that I can't tell you that two devoted same sex couples can't be denied the rights of marriage, but I can tell you they can be denied the right to have a marriage if having one goes against the religion of another man. That's why civil unions will afford them the same rights as a marriage, yet it doesn't count as a marriage. It's not a "really low, unncceary, purely animus-motivated blow to gays", its a way of guaranteeing the right to practice your religion. Is THAT really so bad?
Considering the things we think are OK to do to animals (abandon them, train them for violence through systematic abuse, kill them, kill and eat them, lock them inside for their entire lives, cut their balls off, make them fuck each other) I've never understand why sexing them up would be on the "Not OK" list.
This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, nor does eugenics... but it wouldn't be the internet without accusations of bestiality and Nazism.
On June 28 2010 17:40 Masamune wrote: Once again, how does eugenics have anything to do with gay marriage when gays can't have reproduce with each other?
On June 28 2010 17:41 Severedevil wrote: It's not really a problem for the first-generation inbreds. (Having kids when you're past 35 is a greater risk of birth defects than incest, IIRC. Although presumably they stack.) The main damage comes from multiple generations of inbreeding.
You are recalling wrong. A woman aged 44 has around an 8% chance of conceiving a child with general birth defects. Down Syndrome is the most common birth defect in children to older mothers, and a woman aged 45 has a around a 4% chance of this occurring. These figures are significantly lower than the minimal estimate of a 25% chance of birth defects shared between sibling couples or parent/child couples.
The main damage actually comes from shared mutations due to common ancestry.
On June 28 2010 18:04 Severedevil wrote: Considering the things we think are OK to do to animals (abandon them, train them for violence through systematic abuse, kill them, kill and eat them, lock them inside for their entire lives, cut their balls off, make them fuck each other) I've never understand why sexing them up would be on the "Not OK" list.
This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, nor does eugenics... but it wouldn't be the internet without accusations of bestiality and Nazism.
On June 28 2010 17:40 Masamune wrote: Once again, how does eugenics have anything to do with gay marriage when gays can't have reproduce with each other?
It includes environment when adopting children.
Excuse me, eugenics has to do with selective breeding and altering the gene pool. What part of "gays not being able to reproduce" don't you understand? Eugenics has nothing to do with gay marriage.
If you want to talk about an environmental aspect only, perhaps you would have been wise in using the term euthenics.
And since when does gay marriage have anything to do with adopting children?
The argument about same sex marriage is hilarious because both sides are arguing different things. Supporters of it are arguing that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people, and opposer's are generally arguing that it goes against Christianity to allow it.
When heterosexual people get married they are entitled to a religious ceremony because the church agrees with what they're doing even though they are not followers of the religion. Homosexuals do not have these entitlements because Christianity does not allow it, so it's actually totally reasonable that they aren't allowed to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples.
Most heterosexual couples who have no religious beliefs don't believe that they are taking part in a holy union and just treat their marriage as a civil partnership. Homosexual couples dislike the idea that they have to get a civil union even though that is essentially what they are doing.
So the argument goes round in a circle and both sides are correct.
The day gays can adopt and marry will be a huge step forward against homophobia.
If you claim that it is not good for a child to have a gay couple as parents, you are implicetely saying that somehow, it is not very "normal" or very "good" to be gay. Somehow, a country which doesn't allow gays to marry and adopt has written, implicitely, in his law code that being gay is bad, a way or another.
Anyway, I'm really happy for Iceland. In France... We can still hope, but it is not our right wing government which will make such step.
On June 28 2010 20:01 Piy wrote: The argument about same sex marriage is hilarious because both sides are arguing different things. Supporters of it are arguing that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people, and opposer's are generally arguing that it goes against Christianity to allow it.
When heterosexual people get married they are entitled to a religious ceremony because the church agrees with what they're doing even though they are not followers of the religion. Homosexuals do not have these entitlements because Christianity does not allow it, so it's actually totally reasonable that they aren't allowed to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples.
Most heterosexual couples who have no religious beliefs don't believe that they are taking part in a holy union and just treat their marriage as a civil partnership. Homosexual couples dislike the idea that they have to get a civil union even though that is essentially what they are doing.
So the argument goes round in a circle and both sides are correct.
Sorry, but this post is very uninformed. Opposers of gay marriage are not merely arguing that it is anathema to their religion to allow gay people to marry, but that the government should not recognize gay marriages for a variety of (misguided) cultural, political, and social reasons. In fact that's the entire brunt of the debate. If the opposition's only contention was "it's against Christianity" then this would be pretty simple, wouldn't it be? Separation of church and state wins out easily.
Furthermore you are way, way off the mark saying that "Christianity does not allow homosexuals to marry". Many churches across the US are marrying gays, individual churches have been a hub of gay rights activism, and actually I know of at least one entire church (the Episcopalian) that has thrown its weight behind the gay rights movement.
And do you really believe that nonreligious heterosexual couples treat their relationship as any less meaningful or significant than the marriage that Christians enjoy? To differentiate between those in a "civil union" and those that are "married" based purely on religious belief is to lose sight of the meaning of marriage today. Religion and marriage are intertwined but you can absolutely have one without the other!
On June 28 2010 17:41 Severedevil wrote: It's not really a problem for the first-generation inbreds. (Having kids when you're past 35 is a greater risk of birth defects than incest, IIRC. Although presumably they stack.) The main damage comes from multiple generations of inbreeding.
You are recalling wrong. A woman aged 44 has around an 8% chance of conceiving a child with general birth defects. Down Syndrome is the most common birth defect in children to older mothers, and a woman aged 45 has a around a 4% chance of this occurring. These figures are significantly lower than the minimal estimate of a 25% chance of birth defects shared between sibling couples or parent/child couples.
The main damage actually comes from shared mutations due to common ancestry.
Minimal estimate of 25%? Where are you getting those figures from?
Sibling and parent/child offspring will statistically share 25% identical genome. Sharing identical genome =/= birth defects.
Statistical evidence shows the risk for birth defects in first cousin couples to be around 4% (about 2% higher than normal). Their offspring, however, should share 6.25% of the same genome.
Anyway. I don't really think there's any statistical data available to settle this. Though, it's probably safe to say sibling and parent/child offspring will suffer a significantly higher risk of being born with birth defects than children of 40+ y.o mothers.
Oh come on, incest and homosexuality problems have nothing to do with each others.
Both are problems of social norms. You don't need to hold a PhD in sciology to know that incest is something implicitely prohibited today in our society, and that there is no way it should change anytime soon. For many great intellectuals, such as Levi Strauss or for psychoanalysis, the prohibition of incest is a taboo necessary to any structured society.
Prohibition of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a norm anymore.
The question is not wether we should abolish all social norms, it doesn't even mean anything. The problem is what do we do with the case of homosexuality which is a norm "in between".
On June 28 2010 21:02 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oh come on, incest and homosexuality problems have nothing to do with each others.
Both are problems of social norms. You don't need to hold a PhD in sciology to know that incest is something implicitely prohibited today in our society, and that there is no way it should change anytime soon. For many great intellectuals, such as Levi Strauss or for psychoanalysis, the prohibition of incest is a taboo necessary to any structured society.
Prohibition of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a norm anymore.
The question is not wether we should abolish all social norms, it doesn't even mean anything. The problem is what do we do with the case of homosexuality which is a norm "in between".
What is the between homosexuality and polygamy? Only the number of partners right? So I say polygamy is next to be promoted to be legalized and if you are against it you are bigoted right?
But seriously, this is the reason the government needs to get out of the issue. If the public wants to argue, then let them argue. The government should have no say.
On June 28 2010 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: The day gays can adopt and marry will be a huge step forward against homophobia.
If you claim that it is not good for a child to have a gay couple as parents, you are implicetely saying that somehow, it is not very "normal" or very "good" to be gay. Somehow, a country which doesn't allow gays to marry and adopt has written, implicitely, in his law code that being gay is bad, a way or another.
Anyway, I'm really happy for Iceland. In France... We can still hope, but it is not our right wing government which will make such step.
Really well said. Simple and correct. I can't see Australia legalising it anytime soon either, even with the most left-wing government we've had in years . How is the general political outlook in France at the moment? Has there been a significant shift to the right in recent decades? It's happened here very strongly since the late 70's. Quite sad.
I loved the discussion between Mani and JWD as well.
On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote: I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
I'm glad you said that you may just need more exposure. It doesn't sound like you're against gay adoption as such, just that you have some concerns.
On June 28 2010 15:47 Manifesto7 wrote: What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate.
I think the same argument could be made for sterile couples. It seems like a horrible joke of nature to make some people sterile while still letting them retain all the normal parental instincts. Basically nature is pretty random, it doesn't get it all right.
On June 28 2010 21:02 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oh come on, incest and homosexuality problems have nothing to do with each others.
Both are problems of social norms. You don't need to hold a PhD in sciology to know that incest is something implicitely prohibited today in our society, and that there is no way it should change anytime soon. For many great intellectuals, such as Levi Strauss or for psychoanalysis, the prohibition of incest is a taboo necessary to any structured society.
Prohibition of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a norm anymore.
The question is not wether we should abolish all social norms, it doesn't even mean anything. The problem is what do we do with the case of homosexuality which is a norm "in between".
What is the between homosexuality and polygamy? Only the number of partners right? So I say polygamy is next to be promoted to be legalized and if you are against it you are bigoted right?
But seriously, this is the reason the government needs to get out of the issue. If the public wants to argue, then let them argue. The government should have no say.
As everybody believes so firmly in democracy, the government is supposed to adapt to the way society goes.
I don't think it is a norm at all to have 3 wives in Western culture today. The real problem with all this is that basically the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry or to adopt means purely and simply that homosexuality is still not perceived as something normal. Which I find a bit sad.
On June 28 2010 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: The day gays can adopt and marry will be a huge step forward against homophobia.
If you claim that it is not good for a child to have a gay couple as parents, you are implicetely saying that somehow, it is not very "normal" or very "good" to be gay. Somehow, a country which doesn't allow gays to marry and adopt has written, implicitely, in his law code that being gay is bad, a way or another.
Anyway, I'm really happy for Iceland. In France... We can still hope, but it is not our right wing government which will make such step.
Really well said. Simple and correct. I can't see Australia legalising it anytime soon either, even with the most left-wing government we've had in years . How is the general political outlook in France at the moment? Has there been a significant shift to the right in recent decades? It's happened here very strongly since the late 70's. Quite sad.
France is a very ambiguous country. It is a revolutionary place with a strong tradition of social struggle and defiance against the authority. In the other hand, it is a very conservative, boring and repressive country.
Theses days, the conservative side is much stronger. Thirty years ago, we would have been the first people on earth to fight for gay marriage and adoption, but it's really not the case today. It will come, soon or late though, also because it is not a machist country. Probably next left wing government.
On June 28 2010 16:19 koreasilver wrote: I don't understand why the ability to procreate must be such a fundamental part of nurturing a child. There is nothing lesser about raising a child that is not of your blood.
hormones, like oxytocin for example? im no biologist, but thats one that came to mind.
I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Marriage is so useless I'm happy gays in Iceland can do it too.
I mean, i don't know why gay marriage - especially in France - isn't legalized more often. I live in a secular state, and it's not done yet. Come on ! I hope those conservative dudes will leave the government one day or other.
On June 28 2010 20:01 Piy wrote: The argument about same sex marriage is hilarious because both sides are arguing different things. Supporters of it are arguing that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people, and opposer's are generally arguing that it goes against Christianity to allow it.
When heterosexual people get married they are entitled to a religious ceremony because the church agrees with what they're doing even though they are not followers of the religion. Homosexuals do not have these entitlements because Christianity does not allow it, so it's actually totally reasonable that they aren't allowed to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples.
Most heterosexual couples who have no religious beliefs don't believe that they are taking part in a holy union and just treat their marriage as a civil partnership. Homosexual couples dislike the idea that they have to get a civil union even though that is essentially what they are doing.
So the argument goes round in a circle and both sides are correct.
Sorry, but this post is very uninformed. Opposers of gay marriage are not merely arguing that it is anathema to their religion to allow gay people to marry, but that the government should not recognize gay marriages for a variety of (misguided) cultural, political, and social reasons. In fact that's the entire brunt of the debate. If the opposition's only contention was "it's against Christianity" then this would be pretty simple, wouldn't it be? Separation of church and state wins out easily.
Furthermore you are way, way off the mark saying that "Christianity does not allow homosexuals to marry". Many churches across the US are marrying gays, individual churches have been a hub of gay rights activism, and actually I know of at least one entire church (the Episcopalian) that has thrown its weight behind the gay rights movement.
And do you really believe that nonreligious heterosexual couples treat their relationship as any less meaningful or significant than the marriage that Christians enjoy? To differentiate between those in a "civil union" and those that are "married" based purely on religious belief is to lose sight of the meaning of marriage today. Religion and marriage are intertwined but you can absolutely have one without the other!
Well maybe in America.
Most people I know in UK treat marriage in the same way as a civil union unless they are religious. The problem is that people use the terms religious and civil meanings interchangeably without understanding that they are doing so. This is what breeds this conflict over the issue.
The huge opposition to same sex marriage in any country is from the religious right, or those with largely right wing conservative beliefs. I assume it's the same in America. A large percentage of these people oppose gay-marriage because of predominantly religious reasons.
Also Christianity doesn't only not allow gays to marry, it actually carries some pretty nasty consequences if you ever even harbor homosexual thoughts (flick through to the last bit, or any of the old testament. Fire and Stones are the operative terms I believe).
I would argue that the social stigma associated with Homosexual activity stems entirely from the residue of religious belief that is still present in the minds of the average citizen, even those unaffiliated with a religion.
And no I don't believe that non religious couples treat it as any less meaningful. If you read my post you'll see that was the whole point of my argument. A civil partnership [b]is[/b] a marriage if you aren't religious, it's just a different name.
Also strange is that you end up summing up one side of my argument. Marriage can be extricated from religion in the form of a civil partnership, but marriage cannot be extricated from religion if you yourself are religious, not without ignoring some pretty significant chunks of the bible.
In France, a religious marriage isn't a real marriage. You must get a civil marriage to be considered as married. That's why I don't understand why gays can't do that here.
On June 28 2010 22:17 JWD wrote: unfortunately TunaFishyMe's post captures a common conception of homosexuality and the effects of allowing gay marriage.
Is that conception incorrect? It's all fun and games until the kids get involved!!
On June 28 2010 22:17 JWD wrote: unfortunately TunaFishyMe's post captures a common conception of homosexuality and the effects of allowing gay marriage.
Is that conception incorrect? It's all fun and games until the kids get involved!!
What about single mothers and single fathers? It's okay as long as there's no homosexuality involved?
On June 28 2010 20:01 Piy wrote: The argument about same sex marriage is hilarious because both sides are arguing different things. Supporters of it are arguing that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people, and opposer's are generally arguing that it goes against Christianity to allow it.
When heterosexual people get married they are entitled to a religious ceremony because the church agrees with what they're doing even though they are not followers of the religion. Homosexuals do not have these entitlements because Christianity does not allow it, so it's actually totally reasonable that they aren't allowed to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples.
Most heterosexual couples who have no religious beliefs don't believe that they are taking part in a holy union and just treat their marriage as a civil partnership. Homosexual couples dislike the idea that they have to get a civil union even though that is essentially what they are doing.
So the argument goes round in a circle and both sides are correct.
Sorry, but this post is very uninformed. Opposers of gay marriage are not merely arguing that it is anathema to their religion to allow gay people to marry, but that the government should not recognize gay marriages for a variety of (misguided) cultural, political, and social reasons. In fact that's the entire brunt of the debate. If the opposition's only contention was "it's against Christianity" then this would be pretty simple, wouldn't it be? Separation of church and state wins out easily.
Furthermore you are way, way off the mark saying that "Christianity does not allow homosexuals to marry". Many churches across the US are marrying gays, individual churches have been a hub of gay rights activism, and actually I know of at least one entire church (the Episcopalian) that has thrown its weight behind the gay rights movement.
And do you really believe that nonreligious heterosexual couples treat their relationship as any less meaningful or significant than the marriage that Christians enjoy? To differentiate between those in a "civil union" and those that are "married" based purely on religious belief is to lose sight of the meaning of marriage today. Religion and marriage are intertwined but you can absolutely have one without the other!
1.Lol at the "Opposers" link 2. I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. a.) Christianity in its "pure" form( I use pure loosely, only meaning what it SHOULD be according to the Bible) does disavow homosexuality.http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev. 18.22 To say that Christians would also be forced to give them one of their most sacred covenants is just plain wrong. Now obviously, a more liberal interperation of the Bible favored today may be more gay-friendly, however, you cannot say that for one view of Christianity, homosexuals are not allowed to marry.
b.) Yes, they do believe the government should not allow them to be "married" in the christian sense. And why not? Should a religious man be forced to offer a possibly blasphemous ritual? Is that not the government intruding upon the rights of the comman man? And you may say, and rightly so, "Gays have the same rights and same abilities as others! They should be afforded the rights!" And they should! But why MUST they be in the religious form of marriage, when such an act may violate a Christians religious beliefs. To say that "Oh these Christians are just being so arragont by only giving them civil unions and not "true marriages"" is wrong and misleading. Many christians do not wish to deny same-sex couples the RIGHTS of a marriage, merely the ritual involved which makes it sacred to Christianity.
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote: I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate?
On June 28 2010 22:23 Piy wrote: I would argue that the social stigma associated with Homosexual activity stems entirely from the residue of religious belief that is still present in the minds of the average citizen, even those unaffiliated with a religion.
i have personally never been affiliated with any religion or religious institution or belief and the issue of homosexual vs heterosexual couples has never been raised during my childhood, nor during the time the german education system exerted direct influence on my education (i went to a gymnasium until concluding my abitur). on the contrary i consider myself to be opposing any form of religious belief and practice as harmful to humanity, to the open mind, to scientific and technological progress etc.
yet i am not in favour of marriage for homosexual couples at all, but opposed to it.
edit: i also do not affiliate with (or feel belonging to) any group of humans, nor do i care about what opinion people have about me. for all that i know people (and thus society) are too accepting of ignorance and misinformation and thus im rather careful with who i choose to support, even on the smallest level.
I voted some form of civil union , because marriage is the direct association with religion and church which says that you can not be gay, therefore I don't understand how can homosexual people want to associate with that.
On June 28 2010 22:58 Sharkified wrote: I voted some form of civil union , because marriage is the direct association with religion and church which says that you can not be gay, therefore I don't understand how can homosexual people want to associate with that.
On June 28 2010 22:58 Sharkified wrote: I voted some form of civil union , because marriage is the direct association with religion and church which says that you can not be gay, therefore I don't understand how can homosexual people want to associate with that.
not all religions forbid homosexuality. The episcopal church marries gays.
and legally, civil union ain't the same damn thing as marriage. Basic rights are denied due to discrimination by the government and church.
Whether homosexual marriage is acceptable as a matter of political expediency is a matter of circumstances. In a country like Iceland, it would be as futile to resist as it would be to prohibit drunkeness.
Morally, philosophically, socially, homosexual marriage is an unambiguous evil. There are more or less honest liberals who believe that anything benevolent in nature, ought to be stretched and inflated to encompass the whole of society, to ensure the maximum degree of human happiness. Their error is more or less an error of perspective, eying the superficial rather than introspective qualities of the thing in question.
There is the iconoclast, whose pretended indifference to all things sublime and human (he calls them social constructs) tips over the boundaries of hostility, because the inertia of his mind forces him to repel what he is not equal to.
Both depart from the same flat-minded assumption- that the fundamental question is the reduction of prejudice. That the reduction of prejudice ensures a broader (although not necessarily deeper) constituency of happiness. The absurdity of this claim, the monomania of their social philosophy is easily exposed by at once eying the inequality they mean to flatten. Marriage is not a natural right to be distributed rationally. Every marriage is its own superstition which is a prejudice by nature. Indeed, the greater the prejudice, the more constructive the institution.
Marriage is proud and exclusive. It is unwilling to admit an equal among other persons, much less of other natures. A couple undergoing the ceremony in good faith will admit the equality of other marriages in their reason, but not in their hearts. It is this prejudice which binds a man to his wife, though he discovers a superior woman or superior circumstances. It is the same prejudice which convinces a man that his child is the most important of his life, though there be children with greater talents and fewer deficiencies than his. These are pillars on which all civilized life is built. It is the prejudice of the individual which reveals the sublime reasonableness of human nature.
What is the consequence of broadening the semantics of marriage? One cannot alter marriage as a word without altering marriage as an institution. I suppose, if one day people discover that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with consensual incest or bestiality (I don't see why relationships between a human being and the more intelligent mammals could not be just this,) marriage will have evolved to such a state as to encompass those preferences as well. However words are not only defined by what they do mean, but more broadly by what they do not mean. If a man is said to be laughing, whereas he is merely smiling, then laughing no longer means what it used to mean, indeed, the concept of laughter becomes as muddled as the modern concept of democracy or music, or any of a thousand words which have betrayed their origins. The more a thing means, the less it means. And this would not be so evil, were it not that the greater part of felicity, no less the intellect, no less the law is dependent on the meaning of a thing.
It is true, independently of the taxation to be levied on traditional marriages by the obfuscation of distinctions, there is the condition that homosexuals may exercise the exact same prejudices, and therefore claim a political right as a matter of principle, even though it is unpleasant to the majority of society. However when one views the fundamental question, one comes to very different conclusions. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a weakness of the flesh, in so far as sexuality in general is an instinct rather than a conviction. We do not condemn heterosexuals for being heterosexual, but for dissolution and lechery. However, we praise them for love, charity and community. The one as well as the other is implicit in the sexual act. What is marriage (I mean this in the introspective, rather than sociological way, since it is closer to reality) then, but a purification of the processes of nature? Than the rejection of the carnal basis of the relationship, and the elevation of the spiritual?
In this cast, marriage is highly constructive, in that it rejects what is merely natural, and transcends upward, into what is human. A heterosexual couple is not married because they are sexual, but because they are hetero: the completion of the self through union with the opposite is transcendental rather than merely natural. It is in loving the opposite that the most ardent feelings are aroused, for, just as the highest form of self-love is selfless love (for we elevate ourselves thereby), so is the most sexual sexuality not merely sexual, but unsexual.
It is only blind reason which compels in rational minds this awful theory that men should be no fundamentally different from women. Were that so, both would be degraded.
Similarly, the principle of heterosexual marriage is very simple: it is a constructive institution, not one of paltry pleasure. Its bonds (despite its purely symbolic and ceremonial nature) invents higher virtues, which allows us to go further than the liberties of disposition. Its symbolic significance is not to unite two individuals as Mr. A and Mrs. B, but to transfigure this union into one of man and woman. The union of a single couple carries the burden uniting two poles of humanity.
Therefore by their own logic, the iconoclasts have nothing to complain about- for deprived of the illusion of transfiguration, marriage has no power, except to repeat what was already true about a relationship. If two homosexuals believe that they are as happy as the world could ever be, there is nothing to be added by the symbolic affirmations of the same. No institution should exist when people don't need it- marriage exists because the majority of the world believes, reasonably or unreasonably, that they do need it, that words, and moreover, words said in sacrament, makes happiness happier, makes realities more real.
Therefore where is the virtue of iconoclasm? Except as an outlet for their cynicism? Except to tyrannize people into submitting to their own nihilistic vision of human relationships? It is an evil therefore not by accident but by design, because of its willing destruction of what is good.
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote: I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate?
What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on.
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote: I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate?
What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on.
So, just to be clear: it is your honest belief that if your child was to see two people of the same sex making out in the park, he would be more likely to "turn out gay"?
If I showed you an hour of gay porn, would you be interested in homosexual sex?
yay! who needs separation of church and state anyways? lets have the government rape the churches ideals! f yeah. gotta love gay people who think their above everyone.
On June 29 2010 00:21 JWD wrote: If I showed you an hour of gay porn, would you be interested in homosexual sex?
I think it would have the exact opposite effect.
In fact, I watch an hour of gay porn each day just to make sure I don't become interested in homosexual sex.
LOL That's a good point. What it would do though (overtime) would make me desensitized to it. I would start off disgusted but then I would become less and less disturbed. The line will get more blurred as you are more exposed to it. Also, a child's mind is easier influenced than someone who has already matured. Have you ever noticed male boys who grew up without a father figure? 9/10 they always turn out more feminine than the rest.
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote: I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate?
What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on.
Shit man, I sure hope you keep your kid in a bubble when they grow up. They might instantly turn liberal the first time they bump into a democrat, or uncontrollably drop to their knees in front of a gay man the second they see one for the first time.
I mean, it's not like researchers have found that a hiccup in a person's genetics is most often determines a person's sexuality or anything!
On June 29 2010 00:30 TunaFishyMe wrote: Have you ever noticed male boys who grew up without a father figure? 9/10 they always turn out more feminine than the rest.
Exaaaaactly man. There's a bunch of raging queers who double as gang bangers in Harlem. Something like 40% of all black males would be gay if this were even remotely true.
Marriage to me is just a financial thing so I don't really give a shit either way. The whole concept of marriage is kind of stupid to me in the first place. Why do people have to go through a ceremony/union thing to prove their relationship? The fact that married couples get benefits that single people don't is kind of stupid to me as well.
In other words, I'm not against the civil unions of any 2 people (since it is already part of our culture/society), but I am against marriage in the first place.
moltke, i love you. im only halfway through your post yet, but it seems as though you do respect the importance of clarity in words and meanings, finally, the first person besides myself i have found to do so. \o/
On June 29 2010 00:23 OneFierceZealot wrote: yay! who needs separation of church and state anyways? lets have the government rape the churches ideals! f yeah. gotta love gay people who think their above everyone.
Never knew the universal concepts of marriage throughout the world was monopolized by Christianity.
On June 29 2010 00:35 enzym wrote: moltke, i love you. im only halfway through your post yet, but it seems as though you do respect the importance of clarity in words and meanings, finally, the first person besides myself i have found to do so. \o/
The only reason why anyone would ever think that enabling the marriage of same-sex couples is nihilistic is because they fall into an eternally rolling slippery slope due to their own personal prejudices rooted in their culture. Any notions of "transcending" is meaningless in the face of the law. If you find the act of creating meaning to be nihilistic then I can only accuse you of either not understanding what nihilism is or to be rooted in an irrational or nonrational idea of exclusivity that you use to rationalize what simply is in the end, being a bigot.
Equating love with prejudice, as a preconception, is laughably nihilistic. Sorry, but using metaphysical concepts as your arguments for an anthropological institution is all rather meaningless in this social issue. I'm not even going to go into your irrational dehumanization of homosexuals.
On June 28 2010 22:45 Pandain wrote: 1.Lol at the "Opposers" link 2. I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. a.) Christianity in its "pure" form( I use pure loosely, only meaning what it SHOULD be according to the Bible) does disavow homosexuality.http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev. 18.22 To say that Christians would also be forced to give them one of their most sacred covenants is just plain wrong. Now obviously, a more liberal interperation of the Bible favored today may be more gay-friendly, however, you cannot say that for one view of Christianity, homosexuals are not allowed to marry.
b.) Yes, they do believe the government should not allow them to be "married" in the christian sense. And why not? Should a religious man be forced to offer a possibly blasphemous ritual? Is that not the government intruding upon the rights of the comman man? And you may say, and rightly so, "Gays have the same rights and same abilities as others! They should be afforded the rights!" And they should! But why MUST they be in the religious form of marriage, when such an act may violate a Christians religious beliefs. To say that "Oh these Christians are just being so arragont by only giving them civil unions and not "true marriages"" is wrong and misleading. Many christians do not wish to deny same-sex couples the RIGHTS of a marriage, merely the ritual involved which makes it sacred to Christianity.
Edit: Wow, this is so dramatic sounding. O.o
I've been married for 5 years. My wife and I are both atheists. What's worse in Christians minds, homosexuality or denouncers of God? And yet my wife and I were able to get *married* in a non-religious ceremony. I took it pretty seriously. You see, marriage is not really just some religious thing, it's a legal thing. You get a marriage license from the state, not from a church.
Christians aren't being "forced" to do anything or accept anything. I have no issue with churches not wanting to marry gay couples, just like I have no issue with them not wanting to marry my wife and I. But that doesn't mean I think I should have not been allowed to get married, of course I should have. Why can't gay people?
As far as the whole "you're destroying the institution of marriage" argument, I'll buy that when they start banning divorces. There are so many arguments people make against gay marriage but they're all easily debunked. At this point for me, it's just an easy way to spot a bigot.
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote: I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Why would a child develop badly because he is adopted by gays? Why would a child's environment necesserely has to be homosexual couple? Cuz it's more "normal"? And why do you compare homosexuality and zoophilia? Are you implying it has anything in common?
I don't see the problem of a child being adopted by gay parents who love each other and love him. I don't see why it should be a bad environment.
On June 29 2010 00:35 enzym wrote: moltke, i love you. im only halfway through your post yet, but it seems as though you do respect the importance of clarity in words and meanings, finally, the first person besides myself i have found to do so. \o/
The only reason why anyone would ever think that enabling the marriage of same-sex couples is nihilistic is because they fall into an eternally rolling slippery slope due to their own personal prejudices rooted in their culture. Any notions of "transcending" is meaningless in the face of the law. If you find the act of creating meaning to be nihilistic then I can only accuse you of either not understanding what nihilism is or to be rooted in an irrational or nonrational idea of exclusivity that you use to rationalize what simply is in the end, being a bigot.
Equating love with prejudice, as a preconception is laughably nihilistic. Sorry, but using metaphysical concepts as your arguments for an anthropological institution is all rather meaningless in this social issue. I'm not even going to go into your irrational dehumanization of homosexuals.
I particularly liked where moltke inferred that a relationship between a man and a more intelligent mammal could be defined as consensual, and used that as evidence of the slippery slope against homosexuality.
On June 29 2010 00:35 enzym wrote: moltke, i love you. im only halfway through your post yet, but it seems as though you do respect the importance of clarity in words and meanings, finally, the first person besides myself i have found to do so. \o/
The only reason why anyone would ever think that enabling the marriage of same-sex couples is nihilistic is because they fall into an eternally rolling slippery slope due to their own personal prejudices rooted in their culture. Any notions of "transcending" is meaningless in the face of the law. If you find the act of creating meaning to be nihilistic then I can only accuse you of either not understanding what nihilism is or to be rooted in an irrational or nonrational idea of exclusivity that you use to rationalize what simply is in the end, being a bigot.
Equating love with prejudice, as a preconception is laughably nihilistic. Sorry, but using metaphysical concepts as your arguments for an anthropological institution is all rather meaningless in this social issue. I'm not even going to go into your irrational dehumanization of homosexuals.
I particularly liked where moltke inferred that a relationship between a man and a more intelligent mammal could be defined as consensual, and used that as evidence of the slippery slope against homosexuality.
Why would anybody have anything against even that though? I'd bump a cute alien.
Morally, philosophically, socially, homosexual marriage is an unambiguous evil. There are more or less honest liberals who believe that anything benevolent in nature, ought to be stretched and inflated to encompass the whole of society, to ensure the maximum degree of human happiness. Their error is more or less an error of perspective, eying the superficial rather than introspective qualities of the thing in question.
Philosophically? Look, that's just plainly not true. I can even tell you that most philosophers from twentieth century have fought for homosexual rights and against your repressive concpetion of institution. Let's start with Michel Foucault, who is one of the greatest figure of homosexual right in France, and one of the three greatest french philsopher of last century.
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: Marriage is proud and exclusive. It is unwilling to admit an equal among other persons, much less of other natures. A couple undergoing the ceremony in good faith will admit the equality of other marriages in their reason, but not in their hearts. It is this prejudice which binds a man to his wife, though he discovers a superior woman or superior circumstances. It is the same prejudice which convinces a man that his child is the most important of his life, though there be children with greater talents and fewer deficiencies than his. These are pillars on which all civilized life is built. It is the prejudice of the individual which reveals the sublime reasonableness of human nature.
Don't know what to answer except that it doesn't make any sense.
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: What is the consequence of broadening the semantics of marriage? One cannot alter marriage as a word without altering marriage as an institution. I suppose, if one day people discover that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with consensual incest or bestiality (I don't see why relationships between a human being and the more intelligent mammals could not be just this,) marriage will have evolved to such a state as to encompass those preferences as well. However words are not only defined by what they do mean, but more broadly by what they do not mean. If a man is said to be laughing, whereas he is merely smiling, then laughing no longer means what it used to mean, indeed, the concept of laughter becomes as muddled as the modern concept of democracy or music, or any of a thousand words which have betrayed their origins. The more a thing means, the less it means. And this would not be so evil, were it not that the greater part of felicity, no less the intellect, no less the law is dependent on the meaning of a thing.
That's so wrong, philosophically, that it's quite funny. "The more it means the less it means": what does that even mean!? Concepts change all the time, evolve, and intellectual battles are exactly about that: what word mean.
Do you know what democracy means? Go to Plato, Republic, book V: democracy is a system which work with drawing: demos, worthless people govern. NOT people they have been elected. Is that the conception you had? No. And your talking of betraying an hypothetical origin has one name: it's call being reactionary.
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: It is true, independently of the taxation to be levied on traditional marriages by the obfuscation of distinctions, there is the condition that homosexuals may exercise the exact same prejudices, and therefore claim a political right as a matter of principle, even though it is unpleasant to the majority of society. However when one views the fundamental question, one comes to very different conclusions. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a weakness of the flesh, in so far as sexuality in general is an instinct rather than a conviction. We do not condemn heterosexuals for being heterosexual, but for dissolution and lechery. However, we praise them for love, charity and community. The one as well as the other is implicit in the sexual act. What is marriage (I mean this in the introspective, rather than sociological way, since it is closer to reality) then, but a purification of the processes of nature? Than the rejection of the carnal basis of the relationship, and the elevation of the spiritual?
Now it's turning into some religious reactive christian guilt theory which I think should just be banned for ever from every rationnal debate. You talked about philosophy, now we are in XVth century style dogmatic religion. Purification? Weakness of the flesh? What the hell, seriously?
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: In this cast, marriage is highly constructive, in that it rejects what is merely natural, and transcends upward, into what is human. A heterosexual couple is not married because they are sexual, but because they are hetero: the completion of the self through union with the opposite is transcendental rather than merely natural. It is in loving the opposite that the most ardent feelings are aroused, for, just as the highest form of self-love is selfless love (for we elevate ourselves thereby), so is the most sexual sexuality not merely sexual, but unsexual.
Mariage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other. Not a metaphysical a-sexual construction towards an hypothetical "transcendance". What is there to be transcendate?
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: It is only blind reason which compels in rational minds this awful theory that men should be no fundamentally different from women. Were that so, both would be degraded.
Similarly, the principle of heterosexual marriage is very simple: it is a constructive institution, not one of paltry pleasure. Its bonds (despite its purely symbolic and ceremonial nature) invents higher virtues, which allows us to go further than the liberties of disposition. Its symbolic significance is not to unite two individuals as Mr. A and Mrs. B, but to transfigure this union into one of man and woman. The union of a single couple carries the burden uniting two poles of humanity.
That sounds like some Youngian symbolic neo-budhist theory. What is that stuff with degradation? We are talking about a civil institution. You keep talking from you personnal philosophy, and it's very good that you have your personnal philosophy, but it makes no sense in a debate about the evolution of a law or about social norms.
On June 28 2010 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: Therefore by their own logic, the iconoclasts have nothing to complain about- for deprived of the illusion of transfiguration, marriage has no power, except to repeat what was already true about a relationship. If two homosexuals believe that they are as happy as the world could ever be, there is nothing to be added by the symbolic affirmations of the same. No institution should exist when people don't need it- marriage exists because the majority of the world believes, reasonably or unreasonably, that they do need it, that words, and moreover, words said in sacrament, makes happiness happier, makes realities more real.
Therefore where is the virtue of iconoclasm? Except as an outlet for their cynicism? Except to tyrannize people into submitting to their own nihilistic vision of human relationships? It is an evil therefore not by accident but by design, because of its willing destruction of what is good.
Power of marriage is that it unites two people in front of the law to build up a family. Period. My parents have been not married for years, and they married for fiscal reason when I was grown up. They love each other, they always did, and nothing, absolutely nothing has changed between them because the mayor said few words in front of an audiance.
Your conception of marriage is religious. That's purely off-topic, as it is not what we are talking about. We are talking about marriage as a civil institution that allow two people to live together being recognize by the law.
Marriage to me is by definition a union of a man and a woman. The only objective purpose of marriage is to legally bind two genetically unrelated family branches to each other for the benefit of future children. Whatever other spiritual or religious values it may have is very subjective, hence such values should not be referred to in any marriage related argument.
In the absence of children born to the married couple marriage doesn't mean much, and because same-sex couple cannot have children, their union should not be treated as marriage without distorting the meaning of the word. I see nothing wrong with treating it as a civil partnership.
On June 29 2010 01:24 Random() wrote: Marriage to me is by definition a union of a man and a woman. The only objective purpose of marriage is to legally bind two genetically unrelated family branches to each other for the benefit of future children. Whatever other spiritual or religious values it may have is very subjective, hence such values should not be referred to in any marriage related argument.
In the absence of children born to the married couple marriage doesn't mean much, and because same-sex couple cannot have children, their union should not be treated as marriage without distorting the meaning of the word. I see nothing wrong with treating it as a civil partnership.
Meaning of word change. There is no "meaning of the word" et in stone, wether it is bonjwa, mariage or democracy. The evolution of theses meaning is what we precisely call politics in the broadest sense of the word. So this is a political discussion: should the definition of mariage change, because we consider that the time when being homosexual was a crime are over and that people of the same sex loving each other have the right to make a family.
About this very basic problem of the words and their meaning, here...
this is probably unrelated, but why do we have marriage anyway? isn't based on religious views? it doesnt make sense to base legal bindings on a marriage. it'll probably be better just to abolish marriage and have civil unions for everyone. we should stop wasting our time with this whole divine sanctity of marriage crap.
On June 28 2010 22:45 Pandain wrote: 1.Lol at the "Opposers" link 2. I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. a.) Christianity in its "pure" form( I use pure loosely, only meaning what it SHOULD be according to the Bible) does disavow homosexuality.http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev. 18.22 To say that Christians would also be forced to give them one of their most sacred covenants is just plain wrong. Now obviously, a more liberal interperation of the Bible favored today may be more gay-friendly, however, you cannot say that for one view of Christianity, homosexuals are not allowed to marry.
b.) Yes, they do believe the government should not allow them to be "married" in the christian sense. And why not? Should a religious man be forced to offer a possibly blasphemous ritual? Is that not the government intruding upon the rights of the comman man? And you may say, and rightly so, "Gays have the same rights and same abilities as others! They should be afforded the rights!" And they should! But why MUST they be in the religious form of marriage, when such an act may violate a Christians religious beliefs. To say that "Oh these Christians are just being so arragont by only giving them civil unions and not "true marriages"" is wrong and misleading. Many christians do not wish to deny same-sex couples the RIGHTS of a marriage, merely the ritual involved which makes it sacred to Christianity.
Edit: Wow, this is so dramatic sounding. O.o
I've been married for 5 years. My wife and I are both atheists. What's worse in Christians minds, homosexuality or denouncers of God? And yet my wife and I were able to get *married* in a non-religious ceremony. I took it pretty seriously. You see, marriage is not really just some religious thing, it's a legal thing. You get a marriage license from the state, not from a church.
Christians aren't being "forced" to do anything or accept anything. I have no issue with churches not wanting to marry gay couples, just like I have no issue with them not wanting to marry my wife and I. But that doesn't mean I think I should have not been allowed to get married, of course I should have. Why can't gay people?
As far as the whole "you're destroying the institution of marriage" argument, I'll buy that when they start banning divorces. There are so many arguments people make against gay marriage but they're all easily debunked. At this point for me, it's just an easy way to spot a bigot.
I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage. I have no problem with the civil marriage for gay couples, and it's often provided in the way of Civil unions. However, when the government starts to say that a priest MUST ordain a religious marriage if requested, that begins to intrude upon his freedom.
Also, don't call people bigots. There are plenty of people who are in support of same-sex couples yet just believe that the freedom of religion is a sacred ground. I'm not even Christian, yet I still believe in one of our most sacred rights in the first amendment. Not everyone opposed to same-sex marriage are bigots, remember that.
On June 29 2010 01:29 caelym wrote: this is probably unrelated, but why do we have marriage anyway? isn't based on religious views? it doesnt make sense to base legal bindings on a marriage. it'll probably be better just to abolish marriage and have civil unions for everyone. we should stop wasting our time with this whole divine sanctity of marriage crap.
Marriage has existed primarily as a social construct above any sort of religious institution in many countries throughout the world throughout history. The ancient Greeks, for example. The Korean people have also held onto nonreligious marriage ceremonies for the majority of their history.
On June 29 2010 01:31 Pandain wrote: I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage.
That is completely untrue... The civil institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage are different. Legal marriage for gays and lesbians would not require any church to perform or recognize those marriages... just as they aren't require to perform or recognize the marriages of people of different faiths now.
In the United States, you can get married just by going to the county clerk and obtaining a marriage license, you need not have your marriage recognized by any religious institution to do so, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Civil marriage and religious marriage are already different. Different religions have different rules regarding interfaith marriages, re-marriages, as well as marriages between people of the same-sex (yes, there are churches that support that). The civil institution of marriage pays no regard to the rules of various religions though. If you're an Orthodox Jew and prohibited from getting a divorce, the state doesn't care, they'll give you a divorce regardless -- but your synagogue will still recognize you as married.
Gays and lesbians are allowed to get married in 5 states in the US, and no church has been required to perform or recognize those marriages.
On June 28 2010 22:45 Pandain wrote: 1.Lol at the "Opposers" link 2. I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. a.) Christianity in its "pure" form( I use pure loosely, only meaning what it SHOULD be according to the Bible) does disavow homosexuality.http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev. 18.22 To say that Christians would also be forced to give them one of their most sacred covenants is just plain wrong. Now obviously, a more liberal interperation of the Bible favored today may be more gay-friendly, however, you cannot say that for one view of Christianity, homosexuals are not allowed to marry.
b.) Yes, they do believe the government should not allow them to be "married" in the christian sense. And why not? Should a religious man be forced to offer a possibly blasphemous ritual? Is that not the government intruding upon the rights of the comman man? And you may say, and rightly so, "Gays have the same rights and same abilities as others! They should be afforded the rights!" And they should! But why MUST they be in the religious form of marriage, when such an act may violate a Christians religious beliefs. To say that "Oh these Christians are just being so arragont by only giving them civil unions and not "true marriages"" is wrong and misleading. Many christians do not wish to deny same-sex couples the RIGHTS of a marriage, merely the ritual involved which makes it sacred to Christianity.
Edit: Wow, this is so dramatic sounding. O.o
I've been married for 5 years. My wife and I are both atheists. What's worse in Christians minds, homosexuality or denouncers of God? And yet my wife and I were able to get *married* in a non-religious ceremony. I took it pretty seriously. You see, marriage is not really just some religious thing, it's a legal thing. You get a marriage license from the state, not from a church.
Christians aren't being "forced" to do anything or accept anything. I have no issue with churches not wanting to marry gay couples, just like I have no issue with them not wanting to marry my wife and I. But that doesn't mean I think I should have not been allowed to get married, of course I should have. Why can't gay people?
As far as the whole "you're destroying the institution of marriage" argument, I'll buy that when they start banning divorces. There are so many arguments people make against gay marriage but they're all easily debunked. At this point for me, it's just an easy way to spot a bigot.
I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage. I have no problem with the civil marriage for gay couples, and it's often provided in the way of Civil unions. However, when the government starts to say that a priest MUST ordain a religious marriage if requested, that begins to intrude upon his freedom.
Also, don't call people bigots. There are plenty of people who are in support of same-sex couples yet just believe that the freedom of religion is a sacred ground. I'm not even Christian, yet I still believe in one of our most sacred rights in the first amendment. Not everyone opposed to same-sex marriage are bigots, remember that.
Edit: Post above answered my question. Although separation from church and state has obviously been crossed a few times. "In God we trust" on US currency is unconstitutional =P
Wait so what you're saying is that by making gay marriage legal, you force all churches to marry same-sex couples against their will? Does it really work like that? I don't think so - but feel free to correct me.
I'm an atheist but if a priest doesn't want to marry same-sex couples, he shouldn't be forced to... The law should stick it nose out of religion and vice versa. I'm all about equal rights by the government but at the same time, institutions can discriminate...
On June 29 2010 01:31 Pandain wrote:There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage. I have no problem with the civil marriage for gay couples, and it's often provided in the way of Civil unions. However, when the government starts to say that a priest MUST ordain a religious marriage if requested, that begins to intrude upon his freedom.
On June 29 2010 01:31 Pandain wrote: I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are basically two types of marriage, the religious marriage and the legal "civic" marriage. What most same-sex laws would have is that the priest would HAVE to enforce the religious marriage.
That is completely untrue... The civil institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage are different. Legal marriage for gays and lesbians would not require any church to perform or recognize those marriages... just as they aren't require to perform or recognize the marriages of people of different faiths now.
In the United States, you can get married just by going to the county clerk and obtaining a marriage license, you need not have your marriage recognized by any religious institution to do so, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Civil marriage and religious marriage are already different. Different religions have different rules regarding interfaith marriages, re-marriages, as well as marriages between people of the same-sex (yes, their are churches that support that). The civil institution of marriage pays no regard to the rules of various religions though. If you're an Orthodox Jew and prohibited from getting a divorce, the state doesn't care, they'll give you a divorce regardless -- but your synagogue will still recognize you as married.
Gays and lesbians are allowed to get married in 5 states in the US, and no church has been required to perform or recognize those marriages.
Hmmm... I've been known to epic fail. I always thought that most proponets for same sex marriage laws gave the ability to obtain a liscene from a religious authority but of course I've been known to epic fail . *sigh* This is what I get from trying to enter a high level discussion. Oh well, thank you for correcting me. lolz....
On June 28 2010 19:46 FortuneSyn wrote: Gay people can live together no problem. get up the required laws etc to make this happen
If the religion they are marrying under accepts it or not, is another story and is their right to deny.
And no, they should not be able to adopt.
Care to explain why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt?
Other people in this thread have already shared stories of people they know personally who were raised by same sex couples and turned out totally normal and fine..
On June 29 2010 01:24 Random() wrote: In the absence of children born to the married couple marriage doesn't mean much, and because same-sex couple cannot have children, their union should not be treated as marriage without distorting the meaning of the word. I see nothing wrong with treating it as a civil partnership.
It's not because you can't have a child with your partner that you can't have a child, with adoption or a surrogate mother. Sterile heterosexual couple can't marry either because they can't have a child ?It's possible to have a civil marriage (and not civil partnership) only in a lot of countries, even on heterosexual relationships.
And for the meaning of the word "marriage", he has changed so many times, with the divorce, with the civil marriage, with the possibility to marry many times in a lifetime, why not for gays ? :p
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote: I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate?
What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on.
Your child won't get influenced. If he sees a male and a female kissing is he more likely to turn straight? If so, that would probably leave a lot less gay people in the world. Why do you not want to imagine a child being gay? It seems like your trying to say being gay is fine, but not when it'll directly affect your life.
And for the whole adoption debate - There's been studies that argue there are no problems with children being raised by same sex parents. I remember reading a pretty long article on it, I wonder if I can find it...
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote: I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate?
What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on.
Your child won't get influenced. If he sees a male and a female kissing is he more likely to turn straight? If so, that would probably leave a lot less gay people in the world. Why do you not want to imagine a child being gay? It seems like your trying to say being gay is fine, but not when it'll directly affect your life.
And for the whole adoption debate - There's been studies that argue there are no problems with children being raised by same sex parents. I remember reading a pretty long article on it, I wonder if I can find it...
Yup! The reason why someone become homosexual are a bit more deep and complicated than a pavlovian imitation of their parents (actually you're right there wouldn't be any gay).
Anyway, becoming gay means nothing at all since Freud has proven a century ago that human is naturally bisexual and then repress none, one or both of his orientation. Which explain why in a society without taboo on homosexuality, like in the ancient Greece, almost everybody was basically bisexual, which was the absolute norm.
Philosophically? Look, that's just plainly not true. I can even tell you that most philosophers from twentieth century have fought for homosexual rights and against your repressive concpetion of institution. Let's start with Michel Foucault, who is one of the greatest figure of homosexual right in France, and one of the three greatest french philsopher of last century.Philosophically? Look, that's just plainly not true. I can even tell you that most philosophers from twentieth century have fought for homosexual rights and against your repressive concpetion of institution. Let's start with Michel Foucault, who is one of the greatest figure of homosexual right in France, and one of the three greatest french philsopher of last century.
If I were of a similar bent, I could have said that Aristotle was inclined to think homosexuality aberrant, and left it at that. A minor correction though; you didn't start with Foucault, but ended with him. Just as Aristotle was the Philosopher of late-medieval scholastics, Foucault seems to be the Philosopher whose thought is gospel. A closer inspection of my argumentation though, reveals no inclination against which Foucault struggled. I did not claim that homosexuality was unnatural, on the contrary, I claimed that nature was an insufficient source for people. I flattered Foucault by giving social constructs more credit than it is seriously due. I did not exclude Greek sodomy from a consideration of sexual nature, but I did claim to think that we have superseded it. I did not claim that Christian marriage is the only form of marriage, but I do think that it is under the circumstances the best form of marriage. These are the essentials of what I wrote. Therefore I don't think what I said can be reduced to a position, to be refuted by another position whose essentials in no way refute what I said.
That's so wrong, philosophically, that it's quite funny. "The more it means the less it means": what does that even mean!? Concepts change all the time, evolve, and intellectual battles are exactly about that: what word mean.
It means simply, that more is less, whether in money or in carnal opportunities, or words or tragedies. That is the meaning of Aesop's Boy who cried wolf, whose wolf meant everything and therefore nothing. The same principle applies to marriage.
Do you know what democracy means? Go to Plato, Republic, book V: democracy is a system which work with drawing: demos, worthless people govern. NOT people they have been elected. Is that the conception you had? No.
Actually, that was more or less the conception I had when referring to original meaning in connection with that word. You have to give others credit, that they are at least equally capable of thinking counter-intuitively as yourself.
And your talking of betraying an hypothetical origin has one name: it's call being reactionary.
I understand what you mean by calling me reactionary, but I don't understand what you imply by it. After all, adoption of jargon is to be forever to be bound to the mental cliches of jargon. A man with imagination who bursts the bonds of prescriptive vocabulary, ought to mean something different by "reactionary" than the stale associations of Leninist demagogy. But, despite all my resolution in being progressive in thought, I am limited by this essential problem: I do not understand what you are saying.
Now it's turning into some religious reactive christian guilt theory which I think should just be banned for ever from every rationnal debate. You talked about philosophy, now we are in XVth century style dogmatic religion. Purification? Weakness of the flesh? What the hell, seriously?
Not at all, guilt, like fear is the most rational as well as the most natural of impulses. It is not a matter of social brainwashing, but the most essential consequence of the intellect which can recognize the connection between past and future, between deeds and consequences.
Mariage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other. Not a metaphysical a-sexual construction towards an hypothetical "transcendance". What is there to be transcendate?
If marriage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other, what is its purpose? As I intimated, marriage is not primarily about the law, but in its primary nature, about love. Thus, very sensibly, the ceremony of marriage is an event under the doctrine of Catholic theology different from the consummation of marriage, and it is possible under the same to be married even in absence of the prescribed ceremony.
That sounds like some Youngian symbolic neo-budhist theory. What is that stuff with degradation? We are talking about a civil institution. You keep talking from you personnal philosophy, and it's very good that you have your personnal philosophy, but it makes no sense in a debate about the evolution of a law or about social norms.
I conceded the point at the beginning, it makes no difference to the Icelandic law what I say about homosexuality or marriage. However, you must be consistent about this: either a person's argument is merely subjective, and therefore personal and individual, or his argument is social and participant, in which he makes a claim to the understanding of others. Therefore it is not only "very good" that I have a personal philosophy, but it is also good that it is not merely a personal one.
Degradation is very simply underperforming relative to the potential of your nature. A person who behaves like a pig degrades himself. This is clear enough.
Power of marriage is that it unites two people in front of the law to build up a family. Period.
How powerless is this power, and how ignorant in human nature. I suppose by this account, the impulses of humanity are driven to this deduction: Human beings build up families. To this end, I must marry.
Is it possible than an understanding with so little humanity is to prescribe wise laws for humanity? By treating men as though they were simple like machines, as if inner life were merely the superstructure of inhuman reality, we arrive at the most unrealistic vision of all. It is the Lucifer-complex of the philosopher, who is the only man in the world unable to liberate himself of the enslaving Zeitgeist.
The only reason why anyone would ever think that enabling the marriage of same-sex couples is nihilistic is because they fall into an eternally rolling slippery slope due to their own personal prejudices rooted in their culture. Any notions of "transcending" is meaningless in the face of the law. If you find the act of creating meaning to be nihilistic then I can only accuse you of either not understanding what nihilism is or to be rooted in an irrational or nonrational idea of exclusivity that you use to rationalize what simply is in the end, being a bigot.
On the contrary, having prejudices rooted in culture means accepting the wealth of meanings prescribed by culture. Let us make this straight: even the most insufferable nonsense can be called "creation of meaning." If I strike down canterbury cathedral in order to build a stone hut, I am creating meaning. Similarly, if I abandon sanity, and begin to believe that the world is a dream, I am creating meaning, although the originality there is less than in the imagination of the dullest realist.
It is the same idiocy as the man who speaks up for freedom of speech, and when that has been granted, has nothing left to say.
Equating love with prejudice, as a preconception, is laughably nihilistic. Sorry, but using metaphysical concepts as your arguments for an anthropological institution is all rather meaningless in this social issue.
I did not equate love with prejudice, but cast love as a specimen of prejudice. It is not nihilistic at all. Your fallacy on the other hand, is to equate meaning with reason, which does have a tendency to nihilism.
On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote: Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here.
>implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent
On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote: Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here.
>implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent
Anyone who takes actions that screw with equal rights are either unintelligent or messed up enough that I see no problem in calling them idiots.
On June 29 2010 03:34 Djzapz wrote:They don't have the RIGHT to get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Correct? There you go sweetcakes!
More that they don't deserve to get them.
If people got tax benefits for marriage because they had a "right" to them, that "right" would have to be justified. It never has been. The reason people get tax benefits with marriage is because marriage does a number of things the state deems desirable, and thus the state seeks to incentivize marriage, thus tax benefits.
If two different marriages dont do the same things, or do them in different amounts, under no circumstances do both marriages deserve or "have a right to" the same benefits.
On June 29 2010 03:34 Djzapz wrote:They don't have the RIGHT to get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Correct? There you go sweetcakes!
More that they don't deserve to get them.
If people got tax benefits for marriage because they had a "right" to them, that "right" would have to be justified. It never has been. The reason people get tax benefits with marriage is because marriage does a number of things the state deems desirable, and thus the state seeks to incentivize marriage, thus tax benefits.
If two different marriages dont do the same things, or do them in different amounts, under no circumstances do both marriages deserve or "have a right to" the same benefits.
How and why do they not deserve to get marriage benefits?
On June 29 2010 03:34 Djzapz wrote:They don't have the RIGHT to get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Correct? There you go sweetcakes!
More that they don't deserve to get them.
If people got tax benefits for marriage because they had a "right" to them, that "right" would have to be justified. It never has been. The reason people get tax benefits with marriage is because marriage does a number of things the state deems desirable, and thus the state seeks to incentivize marriage, thus tax benefits.
If two different marriages dont do the same things, or do them in different amounts, under no circumstances do both marriages deserve or "have a right to" the same benefits.
What are the things that the state deems desirable in ALL heterosexual couples that you can't find in homosexual couples??
On June 29 2010 03:39 PanN wrote:How and why do they not deserve to get marriage benefits?
Quit being vague.
The argument has been made to me that heterosexual marriages are the most stable societal unit upon which to build a society. I can't actually find a source for this that isn't ridiculous, so you can take it with a grain of salt, but certainly full 4 person families are more stable and more likely to produce competent and well-adjusted children than families with missing parents.
There is the obvious point that heterosexual marriages are capable of procreation, an act in which the state has a vested interest as it insures the continued survival of said state. Granted, this technically means that tax benefits should attach to couples at the point of childbirth rather than at the point of marriage, but just because the current system isn't done perfectly doesn't mean that its not done for the same reasons.
A more radical but somewhat convincing argument (found in this article) is that heterosexual marriages represent exchanges of labor between men and women, and these exchanges are mutually beneficial as well as benefitting the state. It is not explicitly stated in the article what the author thinks would be true of a homosexual marriage as well, but certainly the lack of reproductive capabilities in a homosexual marriage to begin with will alter the nature of such a labor exchange, thus altering the benefits seen by the state.
There isn't a lot of data on any of these points, and most of the data that does exist is obviously flawed in some way. I don't have much of an opinion on the issue in either direction, but it is entirely possible to hold either side of this argument for both intelligent and completely retarded reasons.
On June 29 2010 03:42 Djzapz wrote:What are the things that the state deems desirable in ALL heterosexual couples that you can't find in homosexual couples??
I don't have to name a single thing that isn't present in homosexual couples. The only thing that needs to be true for my argument to hold is that the state benefits received from a heterosexual marriage are different, even only in quantity. That alone justifies separate sets of tax benefits for each type of marriage.
On June 29 2010 03:42 Djzapz wrote:What are the things that the state deems desirable in ALL heterosexual couples that you can't find in homosexual couples??
I don't have to name a single thing that isn't present in homosexual couples. The only thing that needs to be true for my argument to hold is that the state benefits received from a heterosexual marriage are different, even only in quantity. That alone justifies separate sets of tax benefits for each type of marriage.
Your point is homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get tax cuts from their marriage because their marriage isn't as profitable to the state as an heterosexual marriage.
I ask "how so" and you just drooled all over your shirt. Get working because so far you're doing nothing but discriminating against homosexual couples who would like to benefit from those tax cuts.
On June 29 2010 03:53 Djzapz wrote: Your point is homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get tax cuts from their marriage because their marriage isn't as profitable to the state as an heterosexual marriage.
I ask "how so" and you just drooled all over your shirt. Get working because so far you're doing nothing but discriminating against homosexual couples who would like to benefit from those tax cuts.
On June 29 2010 03:53 Djzapz wrote: Your point is homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get tax cuts from their marriage because their marriage isn't as profitable to the state as an heterosexual marriage.
I ask "how so" and you just drooled all over your shirt. Get working because so far you're doing nothing but discriminating against homosexual couples who would like to benefit from those tax cuts.
Kid can't read.
I can read. You're being vague again.
Your argument is "you're wrong" and I don't think it works. If you're 14 year old I'll let it slide though. Let me know and I'll give you some argument points.
On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote: Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here.
>implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent
Anyone who takes actions that screw with equal rights are either unintelligent or messed up enough that I see no problem in calling them idiots.
you are assuming an awful lot of things here without supporting either of them in a sufficient amount to resolve this issue.
among your assumptions are: - heterosexual couples are the same as homosexual couples - the meaning of the word marriage is clear and undisputed - you know what that meaning is - you can discard all other possible meanings of the word - there is no difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples that matters before the meaning of the word
and you go on to make that your fundament to insult others from.
edit: also:
On June 29 2010 03:30 PanN wrote: Straight people can get married.
Gays can't.
Straight people have the right to get married, yet gay's dont.
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though. their complain is that they are not allowed to change or define the meaning of the term without considering what it means for everybody else. it will eventually boil down to a case of opinion versus opinion, at which point i would still argue that it is better to keep the meaning as it is (in this case), because changing it would cause the meaning of the concept as it was before to be lost. if that doesnt satisfy people, then one can only resolve the issue by having government withdraw from this private matter alltogether.
On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote: Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here.
>implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent
Anyone who takes actions that screw with equal rights are either unintelligent or messed up enough that I see no problem in calling them idiots.
you are assuming an awful lot of things here without supporting either of them in a sufficient amount to resolve this issue.
among your assumptions are: - heterosexual couples are the same as homosexual couples - the meaning of the word marriage is clear and undisputed - you know what that meaning is - you can discard all other possible meanings of the word - there is no difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples that matters before the meaning of the word
and you go on to make that your fundament to insult others from.
Well by those standards we have to go ahead and define all the ambiguous words like in a proper debate. I can start over if you want if you care enough to clear up everything for us =)
Until then, those who think gay couples shouldn't get the same tax cuts as heterosexual couples have to explain why they think so.
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite just as everyone else
On June 29 2010 04:06 enzym wrote: homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though.
No, the issue at hand is that gays are only given civil unions, which ain't the same as marriage. Different tax benefits, and a host of other things. Gay and your spouse is terminally ill, on his deathbed alone in the hospital? You can't see him. Can't touch the will, etc.
Marriage is a government endorsed church function that discriminates against certain groups of people based on their sexual orientation. It's sure as shit a civil rights issue.
On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote: Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here.
>implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent
Anyone who takes actions that screw with equal rights are either unintelligent or messed up enough that I see no problem in calling them idiots.
you are assuming an awful lot of things here without supporting either of them in a sufficient amount to resolve this issue.
among your assumptions are: - heterosexual couples are the same as homosexual couples - the meaning of the word marriage is clear and undisputed - you know what that meaning is - you can discard all other possible meanings of the word - there is no difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples that matters before the meaning of the word
and you go on to make that your fundament to insult others from.
On June 29 2010 03:30 PanN wrote: Straight people can get married.
Gays can't.
Straight people have the right to get married, yet gay's dont.
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though. their complain is that they are not allowed to change or define the meaning of the term without considering what it means for everybody else. it will eventually boil down to a case of opinion versus opinion, at which point i would still argue that it is better to keep the meaning as it is (in this case), because changing it would cause the meaning of the concept as it was before to be lost. if that doesnt satisfy people, then one can only resolve the issue by having government withdraw from this private matter alltogether.
People once used the "We're different" thing to justify such nice things as slavery, sexism, racism, mistreatment of children, discrimination of people who didn't own land or were illiterate...
Talking about definitions is irrelevant because things are not justified simply by having existed and being accepted previously.
The real default position is to not ban same sex marriage. To move away from the default position puts the burden of proof on you. A breach of freedom or equality requires justification. Appeals to tradition\small town attitudes won't convince many people who aren't firmly in that mindset (unless you don't subscribe to this... i guess). The same goes for marijuana legalization. Just because it is currently banned does not mean banning it is the default position.
If the best that we can come up with is, "Gays don't have children so they are useless to the state" then you have a lot of work to do. Should we give people IQ tests to judge their value to society and the rights they should receive? Should the privacy of couples who want their marriage recognized be invaded to make sure the man has a sufficient sperm count to have children? If we are using the measure of, "How useful are you to society" we can't simply apply that only to homosexual marriage and not other aspects of state-personal relations.
I suppose you could argue gays not having children is readily apparent, but I would say knowing their gender is just an invasion of privacy to begin with. Hell, it was readily apparent that there were kids in my highschool that couldn't pass a math class if they had divine intervention, but they weren't kicked out for wasting tax dollars. Reminds me of the AZ law.
Not to mention that despite the not having children difference (which married couples can share), there are many more similarities like ease of taxing, economic\emotional\health security of the couple, married couples won't be spreading STDs, etc etc. Also, keep in mind the scope of the issue here. The CBO estimates 0.6% percent of adults would enter into a gay marriage if they were allowed. Really going to go through the trouble of trying to justify discrimination of 0.6% of the population?
On June 29 2010 04:06 enzym wrote: homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though.
No, the issue at hand is that gays are only given civil unions, which ain't the same as marriage. Different tax benefits, and a host of other things. Gay and your spouse is terminally ill, on his deathbed alone in the hospital? You can't see him. Can't touch the will, etc.
Marriage is a government endorsed church function that discriminates against certain groups of people based on their sexual orientation. It's sure as shit a civil rights issue.
i dont think that acknowledging undeniable and existing differences between both types of couples (whichever the difference brought force by the legislative body to justify that differentiation might be) is a problem at all. and no, racism is no valid comparison, as race does have no influence on the nature of the couple, but sex does.
On June 29 2010 04:06 enzym wrote: homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though.
No, the issue at hand is that gays are only given civil unions, which ain't the same as marriage. Different tax benefits, and a host of other things. Gay and your spouse is terminally ill, on his deathbed alone in the hospital? You can't see him. Can't touch the will, etc.
Marriage is a government endorsed church function that discriminates against certain groups of people based on their sexual orientation. It's sure as shit a civil rights issue.
i dont think that acknowledging undeniable and existing differences between both types of couples (whichever the difference brought force by the legislative body to justify that differentiation might be) is a problem at all. and no, racism is no valid comparison, as race does have no influence on the nature of the couple, but sex does.
So all heterosexual couples are the same no matter the culture
All homosexual couples are vastly different from heterosexual couples.
Do you often invent data to suit your weird morals?
I really don't understand where people hope to get with these "meaning of the word" arguments. "We would distort the meaning of the word"? "We have to acknowledge the differences between the two types of couples"? Who gives a fuck?
Gays should be allowed to marry. Anything but completely equal recognition by the government only serves to deliberately exclude and marginalize gay couples. The arguments of anyone saying otherwise are flimsy semantics that all lead back to "gay people weird me out."
Such a fucking waste of time and energy to be against gay marriage. It enrages me that people give a shit about gay people getting married. There is absolutely no reason to be against it other then religious ones and those are not valid reasons.
For those opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry:
What purpose of marriage can all heterosexual couples fulfill, that no same-sex couple can?
Most people go with the procreation argument when trying to answer this question, but: Not all heterosexual couples are capable of, or desire to have children. Many same-sex couples do have and raise children (lesbian couples go the artificial insemination or adoption route, gay couples can do the adoption or (rarely done) surrogacy route) -- and the children that many same-sex couples already do have would benefit from having married parents and the legal protection that that provides.
No heterosexuals are barred from the institution of marriage on account of their lack of ability or lack of desire to have or raise children. And if you're not going to bar heterosexuals from the institution for that reason, then you shouldn't be barring gays and lesbians for that reason either.
Furthermore, it's just absurd to think that a marriage is only of value if it results in procreation. Nobody actually thinks this is true -- unless of course they're talking about a marriage of same-sex couple. If your grandfather died and your 70-year-old grandmother remarried... would you scold her for entering into a marriage that was utterly useless to society? Would you accuse her devaluing the word "marriage" itself and making a mockery of the institution?
I hope not.
And that's because you realize that marriage isn't just about procreation -- it's about love, commitment, and companionship. Marriage is good with or without children. It's good for people to have someone to love, to be loved by, to care, and to be cared for. People are better off for having those things, and when individuals are better off, so is society.
Marriage gives couples the legal tools and protections they need to take care of one another (and their children, if any). Things like family leave to take care of a sick partner or child, the ability to add your spouse and children to your health insurance policy, to make medical decisions on your partner's behalf, and plenty of other things too numerous to mention... And if one spouse were to die, marriage provides for being able to inherit your partner's assets without paying taxes (imagine losing your home after your spouse died because you couldn't pay the taxes on the inheritance), and collecting social security death benefits.
Marriage makes people more financially and emotionally secure because they have these legal tools and protection.
Marriage is not just a private commitment -- it's a private commitment made in public. And that's one of the major strengths of marriage. A couple doesn't just promise to take care of each other to one another, they make that promise in front of their friends, family, and community, and that commitment is recognized by the state.
And for every person that has someone that is first in line to care for them (and that's what marriage means), that's a burden removed from friends, family, and the state. That's one of the primary benefits that marriage has for society, and it applies equally to same-sex or opposite-sex married couples.
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them. There's no reason parents of a single sex shouldn't be able to properly raise children. Your statement is just as discriminatory as saying that they shouldn't get married in the first place.
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
Why?
In the US, gay people can adopt as individuals in 49 out of 50 states... what is the sense in prohibiting adoption as a couple? (As they can in many states already, with what's called 2nd-parent adoption). But in states where gays and lesbians are not allowed to do 2nd-parent adoption, what that means is they're being raised by 2 parents, but only 1 is legally recognized. Who the hell does that benefit? Not the couple, not the kids.
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them. There's no reason parents of a single sex shouldn't be able to properly raise children. Your statement is just as discriminatory as saying that they shouldn't get married in the first place.
Once again, traditional values. People are going to be against something if you don't ease them into it (*cough cough* STEM CELL RESEARCH *cough cough*) and sometimes it takes more than logic and equal rights to get someone to see something.
On June 28 2010 17:41 Severedevil wrote: It's not really a problem for the first-generation inbreds. (Having kids when you're past 35 is a greater risk of birth defects than incest, IIRC. Although presumably they stack.) The main damage comes from multiple generations of inbreeding.
You are recalling wrong. A woman aged 44 has around an 8% chance of conceiving a child with general birth defects. Down Syndrome is the most common birth defect in children to older mothers, and a woman aged 45 has a around a 4% chance of this occurring. These figures are significantly lower than the minimal estimate of a 25% chance of birth defects shared between sibling couples or parent/child couples.
The main damage actually comes from shared mutations due to common ancestry.
Minimal estimate of 25%? Where are you getting those figures from?
Sibling and parent/child offspring will statistically share 25% identical genome. Sharing identical genome =/= birth defects.
Statistical evidence shows the risk for birth defects in first cousin couples to be around 4% (about 2% higher than normal). Their offspring, however, should share 6.25% of the same genome.
Anyway. I don't really think there's any statistical data available to settle this. Though, it's probably safe to say sibling and parent/child offspring will suffer a significantly higher risk of being born with birth defects than children of 40+ y.o mothers.
Disregarding spontaneous mutation, everyone has recessive mutations in their genome.
When comparing the closest related relatives (aside from identical twins) of parents/siblings, there is bound to be at least one common mutation shared among them, hence the 25% chance of this recessive mutation being homozygous in an offspring. When you factor in multiple common mutations, the figure becomes higher, hence the minimal estimate.
Obviously you won't have much empirical evidence of defects due to incestuous relationships in immediate relatives, but from certain cases, you will realize that equalizing the risk to older mothers having children is ridiculous.
For example, in 2008, a British man in Sheffield was discovered who had physically and sexually abused his two daughters over the course of 25 years. According to reports, between 1988 and 2002 his two daughters became pregnant 19 times, with 10 of these pregnancies being aborted/miscarried due to genetic disorders, 2 babies being stillborn and 2 of the surviving 7 having severe physical disabilities.
On June 29 2010 03:32 kzn wrote:Not to mention gay people _can_ get married. They just cant get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Hah, please show me these "tax benefits" for marriage, because I'm not seeing them. They call it a "marriage penalty" for a reason.
I really don't understand people within my own religion (Christianity) and how they have a problem with gay marriage, but not a marriage between two atheists not under God, they are the same thing in the fact you don't believe God supports them. At the end of the day Jesus, who is supposed to be an example to Christians, didn't try and change the law and condemn the non religious all the time for not abiding by the bible, he tried to convert, it makes no sense to impose Christian morals on the non Christian population what so ever, its pathetic. You can only hold other Christians to the morals, becuase they are supposed to live by them, if they don't believe in your darn religion what the hell does it matter? So should Christians now try and make lying illegal, as that is not a victim less crime unlike homosexuality, or how about cheating? I mean homosexuality is not even one of the 10 commandments and it doesn't hurt anyone (apart from maybe themselves but it's their choice, and if your no religious it doesn't hurt anyone). As PanN said:
How are you people possibly calling this an opinion?
They're FUCKING PEOPLE. Let them have rights too! Is it really that damn difficult?
On June 29 2010 06:30 UdderChaos wrote: I mean homosexuality is not even one of the 10 commandments and it doesn't hurt anyone
Regarding the rest of what you wrote, if all christians thought the way you do, we'd be much better off. On the other hand, it is true that homosexuality isn't mentioned in the 10 commandments but if you read them, there's other stuff that many christians don't live by. I don't think it's a good guideline.
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them.
I'm not going to jump into the debate on this one, but I just want to say that this analogy has been used a lot in this thread and it is so absurd and flawed. The other line that has been used a lot is, "there are plenty of children in heterosexual homes that are worse off." Those hetero couples probably wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Taking a kid away from his parents it's not as easy as qualifying/rejecting someone to adopt children. I'd bet there are a lot more lesbian couples that get turned down for adoption than there are children that have been taken away from their biological mother(s).
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them.
I'm not going to jump into the debate on this one, but I just want to say that this analogy has been used a lot in this thread and it is so absurd and flawed. The other line that has been used a lot is, "there are plenty of children in heterosexual homes that are worse off." Those hetero couples probably wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Taking a kid away from his parents it's not as easy as qualifying/rejecting someone to adopt children. I'd bet there are a lot more lesbian couples that get turned down for adoption than there are children that have been taken away from their biological mother(s).
Even if that is so, your point is equally as flawed and absurd. Of course there are far less children taken away from their biological mothers than lesbian couples who are denied for adoption because the former is far harder to verify at all. Unless there is major, major reason that is obvious to the outside world, the child won't be taken away from their parent. It's far easier to look at and evaluate a paper then determine that someone is unfit for adoption.
In any case, it's still like saying that single parents should have their children taken away if you say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. By saying that, you are presuming that parents of a single sex are more unfit that parents of both sexes. Obviously, there is no way to determine this except by making it a case by case basis.
Philosophically? Look, that's just plainly not true. I can even tell you that most philosophers from twentieth century have fought for homosexual rights and against your repressive concpetion of institution. Let's start with Michel Foucault, who is one of the greatest figure of homosexual right in France, and one of the three greatest french philsopher of last century.Philosophically? Look, that's just plainly not true. I can even tell you that most philosophers from twentieth century have fought for homosexual rights and against your repressive concpetion of institution. Let's start with Michel Foucault, who is one of the greatest figure of homosexual right in France, and one of the three greatest french philsopher of last century.
If I were of a similar bent, I could have said that Aristotle was inclined to think homosexuality aberrant, and left it at that. A minor correction though; you didn't start with Foucault, but ended with him. Just as Aristotle was the Philosopher of late-medieval scholastics, Foucault seems to be the Philosopher whose thought is gospel. A closer inspection of my argumentation though, reveals no inclination against which Foucault struggled. I did not claim that homosexuality was unnatural, on the contrary, I claimed that nature was an insufficient source for people. I flattered Foucault by giving social constructs more credit than it is seriously due. I did not exclude Greek sodomy from a consideration of sexual nature, but I did claim to think that we have superseded it. I did not claim that Christian marriage is the only form of marriage, but I do think that it is under the circumstances the best form of marriage. These are the essentials of what I wrote. Therefore I don't think what I said can be reduced to a position, to be refuted by another position whose essentials in no way refute what I said.
Hum... The whole problem is that we are talking about two different things. I am talking about civil marriage you are talking about christian marriage.
In my country, and I think it should be the same everywhere, they are two different things. I don't give a damn about christian church not marrying gays. But when two people get married in front of the law it basically have nothing to do with the metaphysical bullshit (sorry, but for me it is bullshit) about redemption of the flesh etc etc etc... BUT the right to build up a family and to be recognize as a couple by the law.
That's so wrong, philosophically, that it's quite funny. "The more it means the less it means": what does that even mean!? Concepts change all the time, evolve, and intellectual battles are exactly about that: what word mean.
It means simply, that more is less, whether in money or in carnal opportunities, or words or tragedies. That is the meaning of Aesop's Boy who cried wolf, whose wolf meant everything and therefore nothing. The same principle applies to marriage.
Yes but no. Creating and discussing concept is the whole object of philosophy (Deleuze). And a concept is never set in stone. Cratyle and all semyology explains it all...
Do you know what democracy means? Go to Plato, Republic, book V: democracy is a system which work with drawing: demos, worthless people govern. NOT people they have been elected. Is that the conception you had? No.
Actually, that was more or less the conception I had when referring to original meaning in connection with that word. You have to give others credit, that they are at least equally capable of thinking counter-intuitively as yourself.
Yes, but in that case, you see that what we call democracy is everything but what Plato was calling himself democracy (which for him was a disaster). If you read the work of french philosoher Jaques Rancière for example, you will see that his whole work is a battle for the original meaning of the word democracy. That's what politics is about: battles for the meaning of concepts. Same applies to marriage.
And your talking of betraying an hypothetical origin has one name: it's call being reactionary.
I understand what you mean by calling me reactionary, but I don't understand what you imply by it. After all, adoption of jargon is to be forever to be bound to the mental cliches of jargon. A man with imagination who bursts the bonds of prescriptive vocabulary, ought to mean something different by "reactionary" than the stale associations of Leninist demagogy. But, despite all my resolution in being progressive in thought, I am limited by this essential problem: I do not understand what you are saying.
Your position on the evolution of concepts is reactionary because you are basically wanting things to stay as they are. "Mariage has a meaning, it's the christian union of a man and a woman in front of God", and we are still leaving in the same society in 4000 years. In other words, I said reactionary because you want to stick to what you think is the truie meaning of the word marriage, and therefore to traditions set in stone.
Now it's turning into some religious reactive christian guilt theory which I think should just be banned for ever from every rationnal debate. You talked about philosophy, now we are in XVth century style dogmatic religion. Purification? Weakness of the flesh? What the hell, seriously?
Not at all, guilt, like fear is the most rational as well as the most natural of impulses. It is not a matter of social brainwashing, but the most essential consequence of the intellect which can recognize the connection between past and future, between deeds and consequences.
Well, we can also refer to Nietszche, Spinoza or Deleuze to show how guilt is the affect of domination, the affect of the slaves, to use Niestzche's words. You know, hate of life, reactive forces, self-hate etc... You are a christian, that's fine, but there is no reason why society should be built around an affect that everybody who is not religious has every reason to find abject.
And since once again, we are talking about civil marriage, we should maybe leave that outside.
Mariage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other. Not a metaphysical a-sexual construction towards an hypothetical "transcendance". What is there to be transcendate?
If marriage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other, what is its purpose? As I intimated, marriage is not primarily about the law, but in its primary nature, about love. Thus, very sensibly, the ceremony of marriage is an event under the doctrine of Catholic theology different from the consummation of marriage, and it is possible under the same to be married even in absence of the prescribed ceremony.
Once again, confusion between two things. You talk about theology, but marriage as an institution concerns equally christians, buddhist, jews, satanist or atheists. A marriage is a civil contract in order to make a family.
Then if you are christian and you need to be cleared from the sin and purify yourself in the holy sacrement, well, your business. You go to the church and you get married by the priest.
That sounds like some Youngian symbolic neo-budhist theory. What is that stuff with degradation? We are talking about a civil institution. You keep talking from you personnal philosophy, and it's very good that you have your personnal philosophy, but it makes no sense in a debate about the evolution of a law or about social norms.
I conceded the point at the beginning, it makes no difference to the Icelandic law what I say about homosexuality or marriage. However, you must be consistent about this: either a person's argument is merely subjective, and therefore personal and individual, or his argument is social and participant, in which he makes a claim to the understanding of others. Therefore it is not only "very good" that I have a personal philosophy, but it is also good that it is not merely a personal one.
Degradation is very simply underperforming relative to the potential of your nature. A person who behaves like a pig degrades himself. This is clear enough.
I am not religious. I don't think flesh is dirty. I don't believe in the sin. I don't believe in transcendance. And you see, I am a faithful loving person. Making an opposition between living a a pig and believing in this whole reactive religious thing which claims that everything which is good and beautiful is bad and you should feel guilty about it is a bit fallacious.
Power of marriage is that it unites two people in front of the law to build up a family. Period.
How powerless is this power, and how ignorant in human nature. I suppose by this account, the impulses of humanity are driven to this deduction: Human beings build up families. To this end, I must marry.
Is it possible than an understanding with so little humanity is to prescribe wise laws for humanity? By treating men as though they were simple like machines, as if inner life were merely the superstructure of inhuman reality, we arrive at the most unrealistic vision of all. It is the Lucifer-complex of the philosopher, who is the only man in the world unable to liberate himself of the enslaving Zeitgeist.
I see christian ideology as an enslaving one, as the one which depreciate life constantly like a horrible pain factory. So it's a question of point of view I guess.
You don't need transcendance nor religion to have a high idea of what life is about. On the exact opposite, I would say. Have you read Spinoza?
Hum... The whole problem is that we are talking about two different things. I am talking about civil marriage you are talking about christian marriage.
In my country, and I think it should be the same everywhere, they are two different things. I don't give a damn about christian church not marrying gays. But when two people get married in front of the law it basically have nothing to do with the metaphysical bullshit (sorry, but for me it is bullshit) about redemption of the flesh etc etc etc... BUT the right to build up a family and to be recognize as a couple by the law.
Hence I used the word "evil" and not imprudent, impractical, unjust, unfair, or any other adjective. Not everything evil can be or should be illegal. There is such a thing as circumstantial ethics, that is not the point. The real injury to this entire debate is that people are all too willing to hide behind legal philosophies (of course, the realities of Icelandic culture are ignored,) as a substitute for their lack of moral conviction. "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" in essence means the same thing as "I have not given much thought to the matter." The argument never leaves its ideological first principles, which are permissiveness and isonomy.
I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case for homosexual marriage as a legal right either, since as I said, marriage deprived of transfiguration remains a natural (albeit less beautiful) reality. There is no question of legitimate inheritance (the primary consideration in Greek marriage), there is no question tax and welfare benefits (since those benefits are not integral to the right in dispute), there is no question of adoption being a natural right. What remains in dispute then, but the essential quality of marriage? What could the law give a couple, which they could not give themselves?
If you accept, as I do, that the essential quality of marriage is made in the heart and not on paper, you will plainly understand the relative indifference with which I view the dictates of lawgivers.
Yes but no. Creating and discussing concept is the whole object of philosophy (Deleuze). And a concept is never set in stone. Cratyle and all semyology explains it all...
The point is not under discussion. No one disputes the reality and necessity of semantic shifts throughout a language's history. Yet there is no need for such a confusion of processes and ends. The end of all revolutions is stability, the end of all heresy is orthodoxy. Revolution and heresy cannot be ends for their own sake. Similarly, it is not that a word will be set in stone, but a word should be set in stone. This is not paradoxial. Movement cannot be conceived without stillness. A man who discovers that going to New York by plane is superior to going there by boat, cannot enjoy this superiority by refusing to land in New York.
The only question then is the quality of the change being proposed, whether by shifting a thing's meaning, we give greater poetry or clarity to the word in question. Christianity gave marriage a different quality than that which existed under Roman marriage, yet by its prescription of supernatural marriage, was ultimately constructive, rather than destructive vis-a-vis the institution it replaced. Could the same argument be made for this case of semantic inflation? This was the aim of my jesture.
You are a christian, that's fine, but there is no reason why society should be built around an affect that everybody who is not religious has every reason to find abject.
Suppose I am not a Christian, but see the purpose behind Christianity? As I said, the bottom of person's beliefs cannot be simply swept under the rug by saying: "this person is a Christian, this person is a Muslim, they will never quite see eye to eye." Perhaps, but every Christian thought, no less than individual thought, is an argument, not merely personal and private. Therefore the extremities of secular partition is wrong. It is one thing to have an independent church and an independent state, it is another to pretend that the two inhabit distinct, isolated realities.
I see christian ideology as an enslaving one, as the one which depreciate life constantly like a horrible pain factory.
I wonder if you have not confounded Christianity with Buddhism, or with the more morbid aspects of puritanism. Christianity supports marriage precisely because it gives pleasure through charity. It supports monastic abstinence because of the even higher calling of contemplative pleasure. Its mortification of the flesh is not affected by the fear of suffering (indeed, Christianity's ultimate martyr symbolized the virtue of suffering,) but by the superior virtues of charity. That is what I mean by constructive philosophy, a thing which, like art, transcends a thing by creating the illusion of a higher reality.
You don't need transcendance nor religion to have a high idea of what life is about. On the exact opposite, I would say. Have you read Spinoza?
I don't see why Spinoza's God should give us a higher conception of life. After all, Roger Bacon had much the same idea about discovering God by inference through nature. It is not that our western religion denies the reality of nature, but it does not equate nature to what is most high. Anyhow, I do not feel that theology is much to the point, and the point is that I am no way expounding a personal faith here. I am merely pointing out that a non-religious and religious understanding of the world are not mutually exclusive. If you look at my background, you will find few of the superstructural symptoms which would incline me to talk about Saint Paul. The only reason I bring the matter up is I do not dismiss what I find to be reasonable, even if it's said by a Christian saint.
Hum... The whole problem is that we are talking about two different things. I am talking about civil marriage you are talking about christian marriage.
In my country, and I think it should be the same everywhere, they are two different things. I don't give a damn about christian church not marrying gays. But when two people get married in front of the law it basically have nothing to do with the metaphysical bullshit (sorry, but for me it is bullshit) about redemption of the flesh etc etc etc... BUT the right to build up a family and to be recognize as a couple by the law.
Hence I used the word "evil" and not imprudent, impractical, unjust, unfair, or any other adjective. Not everything evil can be or should be illegal. There is such a thing as circumstantial ethics, that is not the point. The real injury to this entire debate is that people are all too willing to hide behind legal philosophies (of course, the realities of Icelandic culture are ignored,) as a substitute for their lack of moral conviction. "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" in essence means the same thing as "I have not given much thought to the matter." The argument never leaves its ideological first principles, which are permissiveness and isonomy.
I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case for homosexual marriage as a legal right either, since as I said, marriage deprived of transfiguration remains a natural (albeit less beautiful) reality. There is no question of legitimate inheritance (the primary consideration in Greek marriage), there is no question tax and welfare benefits (since those benefits are not integral to the right in dispute), there is no question of adoption being a natural right. What remains in dispute then, but the essential quality of marriage? What could the law give a couple, which they could not give themselves?
If you accept, as I do, that the essential quality of marriage is made in the heart and not on paper, you will plainly understand the relative indifference with which I view the dictates of lawgivers.
What I am trying to tell you since the beginning is that marriage is basically two distinct things. A laic recognition of the will of making a family by the law (the paper) OR a philosophical / religious / metaphysical act that everybody has the right to perceive differently (the heart).
We are talking about the first one. We are talking of the marriage as a contract.
I know many people for whom marriage didn't change anything or who have lived as the best husband and wife without marrying. So what? And I know people who have married after 10 years of living together for practical reason and it has not changed anything (may parents). So tiding together as if it was the same thing as it used to be five hundred years ago is fallacious.
Yes but no. Creating and discussing concept is the whole object of philosophy (Deleuze). And a concept is never set in stone. Cratyle and all semyology explains it all...
The point is not under discussion. No one disputes the reality and necessity of semantic shifts throughout a language's history. Yet there is no need for such a confusion of processes and ends. The end of all revolutions is stability, the end of all heresy is orthodoxy. Revolution and heresy cannot be ends for their own sake. Similarly, it is not that a word will be set in stone, but a word should be set in stone. This is not paradoxial. Movement cannot be conceived without stillness. A man who discovers that going to New York by plane is superior to going there by boat, cannot enjoy this superiority by refusing to land in New York.
The only question then is the quality of the change being proposed, whether by shifting a thing's meaning, we give greater poetry or clarity to the word in question. Christianity gave marriage a different quality than that which existed under Roman marriage, yet by its prescription of supernatural marriage, was ultimately constructive, rather than destructive vis-a-vis the institution it replaced. Could the same argument be made for this case of semantic inflation? This was the aim of my jesture.
That's your conception that I, and many people would (all dissensualists philosophers) reactionary. A concept has to be questionned again and again endlessely. As much as order has to be undermined equally endlessely (cf Jacques Rancière dichotomy between police and politics and his work on democracy), etc... That is not because we love revolution but because what we believe being evil is stillness and order (in other word hierarchy and domination).
Plus what I am trying to say is that it is not a semantic problem. The question is not to give greater clarity to a concept. The question is a political question and therefore it questions a concept. Do homosexual have a right to exist as such in front of the law in our society?
You are a christian, that's fine, but there is no reason why society should be built around an affect that everybody who is not religious has every reason to find abject.
Suppose I am not a Christian, but see the purpose behind Christianity? As I said, the bottom of person's beliefs cannot be simply swept under the rug by saying: "this person is a Christian, this person is a Muslim, they will never quite see eye to eye." Perhaps, but every Christian thought, no less than individual thought, is an argument, not merely personal and private. Therefore the extremities of secular partition is wrong. It is one thing to have an independent church and an independent state, it is another to pretend that the two inhabit distinct, isolated realities.
Ok, let's put it simplier. I am not believer. Therefore I don't believe that man was born guilty because of a non-existent ancestor that was punished for a breach to an inexistent law made by an inexistent transcendant judgemental God (that's an atheist point of view).
Why on earth would I want an institution to clear me from a guilt that I don't have any reason to have?
That's why in France we have two distinct marriages. Religious marriage, and civil marriage.
I see christian ideology as an enslaving one, as the one which depreciate life constantly like a horrible pain factory.
I wonder if you have not confounded Christianity with Buddhism, or with the more morbid aspects of puritanism. Christianity supports marriage precisely because it gives pleasure through charity. It supports monastic abstinence because of the even higher calling of contemplative pleasure. Its mortification of the flesh is not affected by the fear of suffering (indeed, Christianity's ultimate martyr symbolized the virtue of suffering,) but by the superior virtues of charity. That is what I mean by constructive philosophy, a thing which, like art, transcends a thing by creating the illusion of a higher reality.
I have a very good book for you. It's called the Anti-Christ, by Nietszche, and it explains it all in the most convincing fashion.Christian conception is that life needs to be redeemed by transcandance because life, in itself, is guilty. Therefore christianity is depreciating life.
I don't feel guilty, and I don't feel that I need transcendance to give a justification to my existence. And I don't want the laws of my country being tied up with a pain-making judgemental philosophy.
You don't need transcendance nor religion to have a high idea of what life is about. On the exact opposite, I would say. Have you read Spinoza?
I don't see why Spinoza's God should give us a higher conception of life. After all, Roger Bacon had much the same idea about discovering God by inference through nature. It is not that our western religion denies the reality of nature, but it does not equate nature to what is most high. Anyhow, I do not feel that theology is much to the point, and the point is that I am no way expounding a personal faith here. I am merely pointing out that a non-religious and religious understanding of the world are not mutually exclusive. If you look at my background, you will find few of the superstructural symptoms which would incline me to talk about Saint Paul. The only reason I bring the matter up is I do not dismiss what I find to be reasonable, even if it's said by a Christian saint.
I asked you about Spinoza because he gives the best example of philosophy of immanence. There is no transcendance whatsoever in Spinoza as God is the unique and infinite substance. His God is not a legislator, good and evil don't exist in his system, sin is for him an invention of men and guilt is a pain and should be fought.
Was thinking about that:
That is what I mean by constructive philosophy, a thing which, like art, transcends a thing by creating the illusion of a higher reality.
Hum... The whole problem is that we are talking about two different things. I am talking about civil marriage you are talking about christian marriage.
In my country, and I think it should be the same everywhere, they are two different things. I don't give a damn about christian church not marrying gays. But when two people get married in front of the law it basically have nothing to do with the metaphysical bullshit (sorry, but for me it is bullshit) about redemption of the flesh etc etc etc... BUT the right to build up a family and to be recognize as a couple by the law.
Hence I used the word "evil" and not imprudent, impractical, unjust, unfair, or any other adjective. Not everything evil can be or should be illegal. There is such a thing as circumstantial ethics, that is not the point. The real injury to this entire debate is that people are all too willing to hide behind legal philosophies (of course, the realities of Icelandic culture are ignored,) as a substitute for their lack of moral conviction. "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" in essence means the same thing as "I have not given much thought to the matter." The argument never leaves its ideological first principles, which are permissiveness and isonomy.
I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case for homosexual marriage as a legal right either, since as I said, marriage deprived of transfiguration remains a natural (albeit less beautiful) reality. There is no question of legitimate inheritance (the primary consideration in Greek marriage), there is no question tax and welfare benefits (since those benefits are not integral to the right in dispute), there is no question of adoption being a natural right. What remains in dispute then, but the essential quality of marriage? What could the law give a couple, which they could not give themselves?
If you accept, as I do, that the essential quality of marriage is made in the heart and not on paper, you will plainly understand the relative indifference with which I view the dictates of lawgivers.
Biff is doing a fine job arguing with you but I though I should make this piece of your writing a point.
First,
"I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" in essence means the same thing as "I have not given much thought to the matter."
Quite, a jump to conclusions there. That first sentence says not a single thing about how much thought has been put to the matter. Quite the contrary, in a predominantly religious nation one needs to put more thought into the matter to get beyond the common position of "Gays are icky", and/or "The Bible says Gays are an aberration. Like shellfish!" It's true that coming up with a nice simple sentence "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" could mean the person hasn't put much thought into the issue, it could also mean that after a lot of research, thinking and arguments presented by both sides they don't see anything reasonable on your side of things.
Second,
There is no question of legitimate inheritance (the primary consideration in Greek marriage), there is no question tax and welfare benefits (since those benefits are not integral to the right in dispute), there is no question of adoption being a natural right. What remains in dispute then, but the essential quality of marriage? What could the law give a couple, which they could not give themselves?
It doesn't matter that adoption and such are not a natural right. We are talking about any rights which are afforded straight marriages that are not given to gay marriages just because of the sex of the couple.
For example, non-spoilered for emphasis.
Rights and benefits
Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Responsibilities
Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
veteran's medical and home care benefits
housing assistance
housing loans for veterans
child's education loans
educational loan repayment schedule
agricultural price supports and loans
eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage
Ambiguous There are some laws that either benefit or penalize married couples over single people, depending upon their own circumstances:
Marriage penalty/bonus
Someone cannot change beneficiaries in a retirement plan or from waiving the joint and survivor annuity form of retirement benefit, without the written consent of his or her spouse
Wages can be garnished at a maximum of 60% (instead of the normal 25% limit) if the garnishing is for alimony or child support
Yes this is from wikipedia (oooh terrible source), but it's a start. This list is not comprehensive, if you wish to read further on the things that the law will give a couple that they cannot get themselves then try http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
On June 28 2010 16:19 koreasilver wrote: I don't understand why the ability to procreate must be such a fundamental part of nurturing a child. There is nothing lesser about raising a child that is not of your blood.
hormones, like oxytocin for example? im no biologist, but thats one that came to mind.
You certainly aren't a biologist. That neuro-modulator is released in the brain for several reasons. And in men, it's vasopressin that is released.
In women, it is released during: childbirth, breast-feeding.
In men it is released: when a man looks at a picture of his children or at his child.
So by your logic women who can't breastfeed or men who are blind shouldn't be allowed to have children? Fantastic. Also, straight couples shouldn't adopt either then. Well done. Nor should people raise children that aren't their own if they remarry. Glad you cleared that all up for us.
On a serious note, the study of our brains and how they work is in it's infancy. Pretending you have the answers by mentioning oxytocin is silly.
What I am trying to tell you since the beginning is that marriage is basically two distinct things. A laic recognition of the will of making a family by the law (the paper) OR a philosophical / religious / metaphysical act that everybody has the right to perceive differently (the heart).
To untangle the metaphysical knot, the matter can be simply said using old jargon:
Marriage is a state, and in its primary condition, it is a thing which has nothing to do with the law, for marriage exists independently of marital laws, but not vice-versa. Marriage before the law is a species of that primary state, and not an identical synonym.
We are talking about the first one. We are talking of the marriage as a contract.
Who today still speaks of marriage in the age of unilateral divorce as any kind of contract? If there is a contract at all, the contract is nearly impotent. There are no conditions within this contract which are enforcible by law except stipulations over property and children. The latter is irrelevant in the case of homosexual marriage. The former does not depend on the institution of marriage.
A concept has to be questionned again and again endlessely. As much as order has to be undermined equally endlessely (cf Jacques Rancière dichotomy between police and politics and his work on democracy), etc... That is not because we love revolution but because what we believe being evil is stillness and order (in other word hierarchy and domination).
How can one call a thing evil, which is stillness and order? To call a thing evil, there has to be a moral order which is a point of reference for one's ethics. This entire notion that the very concept of evil is evil, is an absurdity which has to be shaken out of the minds of moral relativists on the prowl today.
If domination is evil, then motion is the thing which will most inevitably lead to evil, for the purpose of all things is movement towards excellence and therefore domination. If hierarchy is evil, then destruction of the social hierarchy is the greatest evil, for by it we are reduced to a hierarchy of nature, which has less pity for the downtrodden than even the most tyrannical of human constitutions.
Politics is not philosophy, there is no multiple jeopardy. A man can harmlessly adopt an erroneous theory and then later change his mind with few injuries to the world. In politics, a grave error of conception, a fragile experience of human nature may be corrected after a path of a thousand corpses. This is why few ideological revolutions ever succeed to their essential purposes, whereas those revolutions which do succeed are essentially conservative revolutions.
Ok, let's put it simplier. I am not believer. Therefore I don't believe that man was born guilty because of a non-existent ancestor that was punished for a breach to an inexistent law made by an inexistent transcendant judgemental God (that's an atheist point of view).
Why on earth would I want an institution to clear me from a guilt that I don't have any reason to have?
The teaching of original sin is the teaching of human nature, not of a particular act. It's ultimate meaning is that evil is an integral part of human nature, and that contrary to the liberal denial of sin, there is such a thing as human taintedness. A liberal wishes to improve the world, but the thing he attempts to improve is always someone or something else. The teaching of original sin is merely this: the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. The first task of morality is to overcome one's own flawed nature, and not the flaws of the impersonal world.
I have a very good book for you. It's called the Anti-Christ, by Nietszche, and it explains it all in the most convincing fashion.Christian conception is that life needs to be redeemed by transcandance because life, in itself, is guilty. Therefore christianity is depreciating life.
As much as I love reading his revolt against doctile morality, Nietzsche is hardly to be taken seriously in debate. One only proves his truths by living them. I quote from Chesterton's hilarious passage:
Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We KNOW that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing. It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility that has been lost.
I don't feel guilty, and I don't feel that I need transcendance to give a justification to my existence. And I don't want the laws of my country being tied up with a pain-making judgemental philosophy.
One wonders where then, you look, for the source of your country's laws. In Anglo-Saxon countries, we look back on tradition and precedent. It's on the continent where laws have had a habit of being tied up precisely with judgemental philosophy.
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them.
I'm not going to jump into the debate on this one, but I just want to say that this analogy has been used a lot in this thread and it is so absurd and flawed. The other line that has been used a lot is, "there are plenty of children in heterosexual homes that are worse off." Those hetero couples probably wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Taking a kid away from his parents it's not as easy as qualifying/rejecting someone to adopt children. I'd bet there are a lot more lesbian couples that get turned down for adoption than there are children that have been taken away from their biological mother(s).
In any case, it's still like saying that single parents should have their children taken away if you say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.
Again, how do you come up with this analogy? It's so random and makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's say a family has a child and the father is drafted to go fight a war. The father dies in the war and the mom is now a single mother. Because we deny homosexuals the right to adopt, that baby should be taken away from it's mother? That is logical to you? The army guys comes to tell the widow that her husband is fallen and then says "I'm sorry but we're going to have to take your kid because homosexuals can't adopt."
Quite, a jump to conclusions there. That first sentence says not a single thing about how much thought has been put to the matter. Quite the contrary, in a predominantly religious nation one needs to put more thought into the matter to get beyond the common position of "Gays are icky", and/or "The Bible says Gays are an aberration. Like shellfish!" It's true that coming up with a nice simple sentence "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" could mean the person hasn't put much thought into the issue, it could also mean that after a lot of research, thinking and arguments presented by both sides they don't see anything reasonable on your side of things.
I confess that my assumption was no more than an assumption. However, there is something real in it. If a man tells me that he didn't steal my wallet while looking dodgy and nervous, I may reasonably assume him to be lying, even though it's no more than an assumption.
However, I mean to prove to you how your response seems to justify my suspicions:
My claim:
"The argument never leaves its ideological first principles, which are permissiveness and isonomy. "
Your rebuke:
"It doesn't matter that adoption and such are not a natural right. We are talking about any rights which are afforded straight marriages that are not given to gay marriages just because of the sex of the couple."
A statement predicted by the first argument I happened to make in this thread:
"The absurdity of this claim, the monomania of their social philosophy is easily exposed by at once eying the inequality they mean to flatten. Marriage is not a natural right to be distributed rationally. Every marriage is its own superstition which is a prejudice by nature. Indeed, the greater the prejudice, the more constructive the institution."
There has been one attempt to dispute this hypothesis, and I await the debater's reply.
On your comment about the mediocre debating abilities of some religious fundamentalists:
I suppose it's true, that the "God says gays are icky" crowd will have a difficult time proving their point in a debating club. However, there is one respect in which the fundamentalist is superior to the agnostic: he is essentially free to choose his own master.
The fundamentalist will say: I don't care what you say, how eloquent, logical, sublime your words and arguments. I will believe what I believe. It is the religion of my birth, upbringing, and conviction, because its truth is consecrated not in the reality of sophistry, but in the reality of my life and my experiences.
The rationalist will say: because of the eloquence, logic and sublimity of your words and arguments, I have no choice but to believe you. If I cannot dispute your reason, though my guts and instincts revolt against it, I must adopt your beliefs.
The fundamentalist may be dominated by the spirit of the past, the inheritance of his blood, the richness of his circumstances, but he will never be dominated by any individual. The mind of the rationalist can be dominated by any clever charlatan.
In truth, there is a little of the fundamentalist and a little of the rationalist in everyone. Much of the culture war is a battle of hot air. There is the jealousy of hating the intellectual whom we cannot outwit, there is the mockery from a bad conscience, which we as internet veterans, ought to understand amply.
What I am trying to tell you since the beginning is that marriage is basically two distinct things. A laic recognition of the will of making a family by the law (the paper) OR a philosophical / religious / metaphysical act that everybody has the right to perceive differently (the heart).
To untangle the metaphysical knot, the matter can be simply said using old jargon:
Marriage is a state, and in its primary condition, it is a thing which has nothing to do with the law, for marriage exists independently of marital laws, but not vice-versa. Marriage before the law is a species of that primary state, and not an identical synonym.
You know, I am not native english speaker. I takes me like half an hour to understand this kind of sentences.
I gave you an example of people who have 1- lived "married" (in the sense of loving each other and living in faithfulness, building a family and tiding up their life together) without being married (the contract)
2- got married without it having any effect on their common life, projects, metaphysical connexion, etc... so, the other way round, married (institutionnaly) without marrying (making a step in the life in a meaningful way).
So as much as I understand your point, I don't agree. Would have been very true 300 years ago, but not anymore. The dissociation of religious and contractual marriage is a fact. And the very proof of that fact is that if you ask laic people why they marry, they will answer you that it's for what the contract is designed for: be recognized as husband and wife by the law.
We are talking about the first one. We are talking of the marriage as a contract.
Who today still speaks of marriage in the age of unilateral divorce as any kind of contract? If there is a contract at all, the contract is nearly impotent. There are no conditions within this contract which are enforcible by law except stipulations over property and children. The latter is irrelevant in the case of homosexual marriage. The former does not depend on the institution of marriage.
Someone has made a post after the Calvin joke which expllains pretty well why this contract is, on the very opposite of what you say, a huge deal.
A concept has to be questionned again and again endlessely. As much as order has to be undermined equally endlessely (cf Jacques Rancière dichotomy between police and politics and his work on democracy), etc... That is not because we love revolution but because what we believe being evil is stillness and order (in other word hierarchy and domination).
How can one call a thing evil, which is stillness and order? To call a thing evil, there has to be a moral order which is a point of reference for one's ethics. This entire notion that the very concept of evil is evil, is an absurdity which has to be shaken out of the minds of moral relativists on the prowl today.
If domination is evil, then motion is the thing which will most inevitably lead to evil, for the purpose of all things is movement towards excellence and therefore domination. If hierarchy is evil, then destruction of the social hierarchy is the greatest evil, for by it we are reduced to a hierarchy of nature, which has less pity for the downtrodden than even the most tyrannical of human constitutions.
Politics is not philosophy, there is no multiple jeopardy. A man can harmlessly adopt an erroneous theory and then later change his mind with few injuries to the world. In politics, a grave error of conception, a fragile experience of human nature may be corrected after a path of a thousand corpses. This is why few ideological revolutions ever succeed to their essential purposes, whereas those revolutions which do succeed are essentially conservative revolutions.
Look. You use arguments which are very good, I almost wonder if I am not reading Locke.
Problem is that since then, there have been French Revolution, Marxism etc etc etc... which were all good and bad, but brought much to the understanding of politics (no gulag and Lenin argument, please, I got tired of them). In other word, the world have changed since the time we could have an utopic idea of the well oiled society where everybody and everything is at its place.
So, well, there is still a political current that believe that a good society is a still, morally and socially ordered society, where the natural hierarchy of domination is not disturbed. That's called the right-wing.
And my very personnal opinion about is, as was saying Marguerite Duras that: "La droite, c'est la mort".
let's not talk about revolutions, it's not even the subject since you don't need a revolution to subvert / unndermine social order. Now politic and philosophy work hand into hand, since Plato to the XXth century most important philosophers. Not because philosophers make good theory, but because philosophy has the same object than politics, which is as I was saying, the battle for words, for concepts.
Ok, let's put it simplier. I am not believer. Therefore I don't believe that man was born guilty because of a non-existent ancestor that was punished for a breach to an inexistent law made by an inexistent transcendant judgemental God (that's an atheist point of view).
Why on earth would I want an institution to clear me from a guilt that I don't have any reason to have?
The teaching of original sin is the teaching of human nature, not of a particular act. It's ultimate meaning is that evil is an integral part of human nature, and that contrary to the liberal denial of sin, there is such a thing as human taintedness. A liberal wishes to improve the world, but the thing he attempts to improve is always someone or something else. The teaching of original sin is merely this: the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. The first task of morality is to overcome one's own flawed nature, and not the flaws of the impersonal world.
That's a christian point of view and everytime I read something like that, I die a little bit inside.
I don't see human nature as being guilty, and I don't believe there is such things as good and evil. That's true, the sin teachs us that the fault lies in the star, but it also tells us that in the star there is a legislator who judge us and declare us guilty.
I have a very good book for you. It's called the Anti-Christ, by Nietszche, and it explains it all in the most convincing fashion.Christian conception is that life needs to be redeemed by transcandance because life, in itself, is guilty. Therefore christianity is depreciating life.
As much as I love reading his revolt against doctile morality, Nietzsche is hardly to be taken seriously in debate. One only proves his truths by living them. I quote from Chesterton's hilarious passage:
I think on the contrary that Nietszche is probably the best analyst, with Feuerbach maybe, of christianity. It is not a revolt against morality, it's a revolt against all judgemental philosophy.
Saying that Nietszche shouldn't be taken seriously is basically saying that he was not a great philosopher.
Now about that extract, that's very good, but the fact that Nietszche did that or that is irrelevant and doesn't change anything to what he has written. And the comparison with Joan d'Arc is a poetic one but doesn't bring anything neither unnless we should start comparing Kennedy and Homer. His points on christianity, on moral, on transcendance are absolutely valid, and he remains a key figure of european philosophy.
I don't feel guilty, and I don't feel that I need transcendance to give a justification to my existence. And I don't want the laws of my country being tied up with a pain-making judgemental philosophy.
One wonders where then, you look, for the source of your country's laws. In Anglo-Saxon countries, we look back on tradition and precedent. It's on the continent where laws have had a habit of being tied up precisely with judgemental philosophy.
I didn't know about that, and you are very very smart. But you talk about judgemental philosophy an other way than me, and you know it. Your objection is a sophism as you voluntarily mix up between two meaning of the word judgement in philosophy:
-judgement in a kantian term as operation of claiming, denaying a propositionnal content and the particular current of the late XVIIIth century philsophy which is therefore called judgemental philosophy (the one you refer about.)
-judgement as the judicial act of declairing peole guilty or innocent. The christian philosophy is judgemental, not in the kantian way, but because its god is a legislator.
In another word I was talking about a judgental philosophy, not the judgmental philosophy.
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them.
I'm not going to jump into the debate on this one, but I just want to say that this analogy has been used a lot in this thread and it is so absurd and flawed. The other line that has been used a lot is, "there are plenty of children in heterosexual homes that are worse off." Those hetero couples probably wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Taking a kid away from his parents it's not as easy as qualifying/rejecting someone to adopt children. I'd bet there are a lot more lesbian couples that get turned down for adoption than there are children that have been taken away from their biological mother(s).
In any case, it's still like saying that single parents should have their children taken away if you say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.
Again, how do you come up with this analogy? It's so random and makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's say a family has a child and the father is drafted to go fight a war. The father dies in the war and the mom is now a single mother. Because we deny homosexuals the right to adopt, that baby should be taken away from it's mother? That is logical to you? The army guys comes to tell the widow that her husband is fallen and then says "I'm sorry but we're going to have to take your kid because homosexuals can't adopt."
The way you are debating this is really strange. I never said anything about taking away a child from a single parent because homosexuals can't adopt.
On June 30 2010 07:41 Pineapple wrote: Whenever I see a thread with a topic like this I just click on all pages and then control F the word 'God' then start reading from there.
God just told me homosexuality isn't a big deal. After all, why did he make Adam first? Adam was made in God's image. God must be a man. Despite the fact he wouldn't need a sex\gender. Guess who he made to be his friend? A man.
Congratulations to Iceland! I've never had a problem with gay marriage or adoption to be honest. Just one less stumbling block on the road to equality.
On June 30 2010 07:41 Pineapple wrote: Whenever I see a thread with a topic like this I just click on all pages and then control F the word 'God' then start reading from there.
God just told me homosexuality isn't a big deal. After all, why did he make Adam first? Adam was made in God's image. God must be a man. Despite the fact he wouldn't need a sex\gender. Guess who he made to be his friend? A man.
Solid, irrefutable logic.
Adam wasn't meant to be his only friend though, and god gave him a companion so he wouldn't be lonely. This companion was a woman.
On June 30 2010 07:41 Pineapple wrote: Whenever I see a thread with a topic like this I just click on all pages and then control F the word 'God' then start reading from there.
God just told me homosexuality isn't a big deal. After all, why did he make Adam first? Adam was made in God's image. God must be a man. Despite the fact he wouldn't need a sex\gender. Guess who he made to be his friend? A man.
Solid, irrefutable logic.
Adam wasn't meant to be his only friend though, and god gave him a companion so he wouldn't be lonely. This companion was a woman.
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them.
I'm not going to jump into the debate on this one, but I just want to say that this analogy has been used a lot in this thread and it is so absurd and flawed. The other line that has been used a lot is, "there are plenty of children in heterosexual homes that are worse off." Those hetero couples probably wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Taking a kid away from his parents it's not as easy as qualifying/rejecting someone to adopt children. I'd bet there are a lot more lesbian couples that get turned down for adoption than there are children that have been taken away from their biological mother(s).
In any case, it's still like saying that single parents should have their children taken away if you say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.
Again, how do you come up with this analogy? It's so random and makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's say a family has a child and the father is drafted to go fight a war. The father dies in the war and the mom is now a single mother. Because we deny homosexuals the right to adopt, that baby should be taken away from it's mother? That is logical to you? The army guys comes to tell the widow that her husband is fallen and then says "I'm sorry but we're going to have to take your kid because homosexuals can't adopt."
I think what he was trying to say is that if you don't think a homosexual couple can have children it must be because you think only a man/women couple should be aloud to have children, and obviously there's not a man/women couple in the case of a single parent. Am I right?
I'm really glad for the change. I don't see a reason as too why gay marriage is a bad thing. They are people, they should be able to have their rights.
On the other hand.. this means I might have to go to a wedding this year or next.. god damn, I hate attending weddings!