Gay Marriage

[Mark T]

Actually, in the UK you can get married at 16

Famine just pointed it out aswell. I'll change my posts now.

On a different note, I think this thread needs to have a summary in one of the posts to account for all the issues raised. Makes it easier for new comers to understand what has been said so far..

 

[Swift]

I explained earlier how you can validate your claim. The claim "America is built on the idea of the family" is not something that's impossible to validate (if it were true). You're just finding it impossible because it isn't true.

And you still haven't told me what it is based on.

...and what exactly is in the constitution is it that prevents such a thing... and what bearing might that have on our discussion here?

I saw this coming way back about 8 pages ago. It's a smart line to take. However, it's not the same. For reasons I outlined many times. Basically, marriage is a man and a woman. Anything else isn't a marriage. Preventing specific types of men and women to not be called married is wrong. Preventing two men or two women to not be called married is simply the definition of marriage.

But we have to change that because a group of people that say their rights are being violated and they want to be viewed in the same light as straight people but still be different. That's quite literally, as hypocritical as a lot of the black leaders in America today.

 

[Famine]

Basically, marriage is a man and a woman. Anything else isn't a marriage.

And why is that?

No-one seems willing to answer that point.

 

[Danoff]

I think what fair would be to allow gay marriage, when the majority vote it in. I'm kinda like Mark T, that if enough people supports it, I wouldn't stand in the way. Husband-husband, wife-wife, to me is not marriage, but like Christmas, it wouldn't be the first religious content taken out of some religion, turned into whatever "the people" wanted it to be.

Check my signature. The majority shouldn't be needed to vote on whether or not the government should treat citizens equally under the law. It's already written in our constitution.

There is discrimination in our government, society, etc. You have to have some, some of it is necessary. Communism works great on paper, but not so good in practice.

Communism only works great on paper if you don't think about it much at all. Give it even a passing thought and you'd realize "hey, maybe people won't like being told what to do with every aspect of their lives."

No, discrimination is NOT necessary and you have NOT established that. I could have used your same argument against the black civil rights movement - it doesn't hold any more water now than it did then.

Tax law, business law, civil law......it's all discriminatory, but what's the key difference between slavery and the womans rights movement and these other discriminations?

People stood up to the discrimination. That's the difference. I agree that there are other laws that are discriminatory. They need fixing as well. That doesn't justify keeping other laws that we know violate the constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.

And you still haven't told me what it is based on.

I've told you AT LEAST twice that this nation was founded on logic and rationality. You chose not to listen, and this isn't an answer to my question.

I saw this coming way back about 8 pages ago. It's a smart line to take. However, it's not the same. For reasons I outlined many times. Basically, marriage is a man and a woman. Anything else isn't a marriage. Preventing specific types of men and women to not be called married is wrong. Preventing two men or two women to not be called married is simply the definition of marriage.

Yes and excluding Christians from getting married could also simply be the definition of marriage as well. You seem to be unable to conceive of the notion that the definition could be wrong, that the definition could be discriminatory, that the definition you put forth could be wholly unacceptable for a nation that claims to treat it's citizens equally and that claims freedom of religion.

Repeating ad nauseum that the definition is "between a man and a woman" and that's it, isn't getting us anywhere. I've debunked that notion about 5 times at this point and you keep coming back to it, refusing to respond to the points I raise, refusing to answer the questions that Famine and myself have posed multiple times.

Honestly it's almost like you've got your fingers in your ears, eyes held tightly shut, and are repeating your mantra loudly "marriage is between a man and a woman", so that you can't hear anything about the founding principles of this nation, the violation of equal protection, the discriminatory practices of our government, or the fact that you can't base law on Christianity.

Take your fingers out, open your eyes, and answer a few (just a few) of my questions.

 

[UnoMOTO]

And why is that?

No-one seems willing to answer that point.

clicky

This link gives you more why's then you can shake a stick at. Of course this is only why we think that and I wouldn't say this is why you or others should think it is so.

 

[TheCracker]

clicky

This link gives you more why's then you can shake a stick at. Of course this is only why we think that and I wouldn't say this is why you or others should think it is so.

But marriage is a concept much much older than any christian teachings - you just can't use the bible as a tool for defining marriage. Full stop.

 

[Danoff]

clicky

This link gives you more why's then you can shake a stick at. Of course this is only why we think that and I wouldn't say this is why you or others should think it is so.

Scripture doesn't help justify law in a country that practices freedom of religion. If you don't happen to live in such a nation, and want to live under Christian law - have at it. Those of us who want to allow people their pesky traditions and beliefs will continue to try to keep law based on rationality rather than superstition.

 

[Famine]

Scripture doesn't help justify law in a country that practices freedom of religion. If you don't happen to live in such a nation, and want to live under Christian law - have at it. Those of us who want to allow people their pesky traditions and beliefs will continue to try to keep law based on rationality rather than superstition.

Indeed.

So once again, why is marriage only between a man and a woman?

 

[Danoff]

I was thinking last night about some of the things swift has said in this thread about family and that being the strcuture of our society.

I completely disagree that America is based on the family unit, but I realized that the reason Swift is so focused on the notion of the family is that his religion is based on the concept of the family. In Christianity we have:

God = Dad
God = Mom
Humans = Children
Animals = Toys

...wait... no that's a one-parent family. That doesn't quite work right....

 

[UnoMOTO]

But marriage is a concept much much older than any christian teachings - you just can't use the bible as a tool for defining marriage. Full stop.

Scripture doesn't help justify law in a country that practices freedom of religion. If you don't happen to live in such a nation, and want to live under Christian law - have at it. Those of us who want to allow people their pesky traditions and beliefs will continue to try to keep law based on rationality rather than superstition.

Indeed.

So once again, why is marriage only between a man and a woman?

Famine asked swift why it was soo...I gave him every reason why swift believes it is so. It doesn't matter what the LAW is to have a belief. If it was or wasn't the current LAW it would be his belief of what marriage should be.

 

[Famine]

Famine asked swift why it was soo...I gave him every reason why swift believes it is so. It doesn't matter what the LAW is to have a belief. If it was or wasn't the current LAW it would be his belief of what marriage should be.

Belief is irrelevant. It has been repeatedly posted in this thread that "Marriage is a man and a woman" as an argument against marriage between homosexuals. Now, if this is an immutable fact and law, there ought to be a reason behind it. For example... Who says that marriage is a man and a woman and nothing else? When did they say it? Why?

Bear in mind that fact is not based on religion "God, the Bible, he hates gays" isn't acceptable as an answer as it doesn't address WHY it's a fact - only why Christians think it should be.

 

[Danoff]

Famine asked swift why it was soo...I gave him every reason why swift believes it is so. It doesn't matter what the LAW is to have a belief. If it was or wasn't the current LAW it would be his belief of what marriage should be.

But he knows (and you should too) that you can't support a law for religious reasons alone - even if they're yours. You don't see me trying to make religion illegal, even though I'd love for everyone to stop believing in God. I recognize that I can't force that upon others because this is a free country.

 

[Duke]

Famine asked swift why it was soo...I gave him every reason why swift believes it is so. It doesn't matter what the LAW is to have a belief. If it was or wasn't the current LAW it would be his belief of what marriage should be.

EXACTLY!

What a "marriage" is legally is totally irrelevant to what Swift or Pako or whoever believes it is within the boundaries of their faith. Nobody is asking any church to perform homosexual ceremonies against their will. Which brings us back to my question from about 8 pages ago:

If your neighbors are gay, does that make you any less committed to your wife? What possible moral effect can their relationship have on yours, unless you choose to let it? Frankly, if your marriage requires a literal, rigid, exclusionary definition of the word "marriage" to support it, then I'm questioning its strength anyway.

If my heterosexual neighbor cheats on his wife, it doesn't damage my relationship (unless of course he does it with MY wife). It doesn't "weaken the institution" of my marriage. It's a bad moral choice (assuming his wife didn't know and approve beforehand) that reflects badly only on the cheater. It can have no POSSIBLE effect on me if I don't cheat!

Homosexual marriages are precisely the same. They can only cause harm to your marriage if YOU make them cause harm.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Belief is irrelevant. It has been repeatedly posted in this thread that "Marriage is a man and a woman" as an argument against marriage between homosexuals. Now, if this is an immutable fact and law, there ought to be a reason behind it. For example... Who says that marriage is a man and a woman and nothing else? When did they say it? Why?

Bear in mind that fact is not based on religion "God, the Bible, he hates gays" isn't acceptable as an answer as it doesn't address WHY it's a fact - only why Christians think it should be.

Belief is VERY relevant here in our country. Not that Danoff likes to hear this but our founding fathers made laws based on their beliefs. We now are going through the process of eliminating laws like this one that WAS based on a belief.

But he knows (and you should too) that you can't support a law for religious reasons alone - even if they're yours. You don't see me trying to make religion illegal, even though I'd love for everyone to stop believing in God. I recognize that I can't force that upon others because this is a free country.

I can and I do when ever I walk into a voting booth. If it is my religious belief that gays should not be married then I have the RIGHT to vote in that manner.

EDIT...The original Constitution does not define what marriage actually is if thats what your asking. Its been the judges since then that have had to define what marriage is. Many states have now voted to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as between man and woman.

EDIT#2 This Amendment passed here in colorado
Amendment 43 proposes adding a new section to Article II of the Colorado Constitution that defines marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman.

Recognized marriages in Colorado would be:

only between a man and a woman
licensed, solemnized, and registered according to pre-established procedures
common law marriages only with a man and a woman who live together and hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife

 

[Mark T]

So are we saying that we cannot have a bonding union that is just for a man and a woman?

Isn't that discriminitary?

 

[Duke]

So are we saying that we cannot have a bonding union that is just for a man and a woman?

Isn't that discriminitary?

Ummm, how could it be? Nothing is preventing a man and a woman from getting married. And, as I said, no one is requiring churches that object on moral grounds to perform gay marriages.

So who exactly is being discriminated against?

What you're trying to do is a logical null.

 

[Famine]

Belief is VERY relevant here in our country. Not that Danoff likes to hear this but our founding fathers made laws based on their beliefs. We now are going through the process of eliminating laws like this one that WAS based on a belief.

I can and I do when ever I walk into a voting booth. If it is my religious belief that gays should not be married then I have the RIGHT to vote in that manner.

So... you'd vote against your OWN Bill of Rights if you had the chance?

EDIT...The original Constitution does not define what marriage actually is if thats what your asking. Its been the judges since then that have had to define what marriage is. Many states have now voted to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as between man and woman.

Really? Curse those pesky judges, fiddling with tradition!

 

[Mark T]

Ummm, how could it be? Nothing is preventing a man and a woman from getting married. And, as I said, no one is requiring churches that object on moral grounds to perform gay marriages.

So who exactly is being discriminated against?

What you're trying to do is a logical null.

If the gay community suddenly invented a new kind of marriage which had all the same laws as marriage but just a different name and only allowed gay couples to be in the ceremony, would that be wrong?

I wouldn't mind because I would know that as a hetrosexual male I have the alternative ceremony known as marriage.

If gay people don't want to be catergorised, then we need to get rid of all the terms associated with it. Gay, queer, homosexual all need to go including gay pride festivals, gay times magazine because as far as I can see that is categorising them and is also discrimitary. Although they seem to take pride in that form of discrimination.

 

[UnoMOTO]

So... you'd vote against your OWN Bill of Rights if you had the chance?

You say voting against something. I say protecting the core values that made this country the greatest country on the planet.

Really? Curse those pesky judges, fiddling with tradition!

Its the judges in the end...but its the people and the lawyers that have made our court system a joke. Thats why we now have to put things like this up to a vote of the people.

 

[Famine]

If the gay community suddenly invented a new kind of marriage which had all the same laws as marriage but just a different name and only allowed gay couples to be in the ceremony, would that be wrong?

It would require legislation in order to have "all the same laws as marriage", but yes, it would be.

If gay people don't want to be catergorised, then we need to get rid of all the terms associated with it. Gay, queer, homosexual all need to go including gay pride festivals, gay times magazine because as far as I can see that is categorising them and is also discrimitary. Although they seem to take pride in that form of discrimination.

Just like all the black guys referring to each other as "n***a", not to mention the MoBos, Miss Black America etc.?

You say voting against something. I say protecting the core values that made this country the greatest country on the planet.

The first article of the Bill of Rights guarantees "Freedom of religion", not "Freedom of Christianity"! That's one of the core values of your country, and you'd vote against it in a heartbeat.

 

[FoolKiller]

If the gay community suddenly invented a new kind of marriage which had all the same laws as marriage but just a different name and only allowed gay couples to be in the ceremony, would that be wrong?

Yes.

I wouldn't mind because I would know that as a hetrosexual male I have the alternative ceremony known as marriage.

That does not make it any less discriminatory.

If gay people don't want to be catergorised, then we need to get rid of all the terms associated with it. Gay, queer, homosexual all need to go including gay pride festivals, gay times magazine because as far as I can see that is categorising them and is also discrimitary. Although they seem to take pride in that form of discrimination.

None of those things are used by the government. And if friends of gay people choose to walk with them in gay pride marches they can. And the terms were not created by the homosexual community to begin with. Considering that queer originally means odd or strange you can see how it came to be used offensively before homosexuality was more commonly accepted. Gay actually means happy and was used to describe the more flamboyant stereotype appointed to homosexual men. Once again, created to be offensive.

I bet money the majority of the homosexual community would love to just be called people and not have to be labelled because they aren't like you or I.

 

[Swift]

I've told you AT LEAST twice that this nation was founded on logic and rationality. You chose not to listen, and this isn't an answer to my question.

Danoff, I don't believe for one second that people are willing to die and send their children to die for logic and rationality. They are willing to die for an ideal. For a concept that there is a place where you have to earn what you have, but you can have almost anything. Where you're children and family can live without constant persecution. People will die for the first sentence in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The rest of it is a logical extension from that position.


I understand where Famine, Duke and Danoff are coming from. They have a very strong case. The problem is that our government has given marriage legal implications. If it wasn't for that, this discussion would not be happening. It's all about titles guys. Make no mistake, it has jack to do with rights and all that. If it did, the gay community wouldn't be fighting for marriage, they would be fighting for the same legal privileges of marriage. There are some titles I have no problem giving up. Like "African-American". However, there are some titles that deserve respect and have derived specifically from tradition. The term "marriage" doesn't come up at all in the constitution. Why should the law then be able to change a title it doesn't define?

 

[UnoMOTO]

The first article of the Bill of Rights guarantees "Freedom of religion", not "Freedom of Christianity"! That's one of the core values of your country, and you'd vote against it in a heartbeat.

I KNOW....crazy isn't it! I'm such a right wing radical nut!

Nice twist though...You went from gay marriage to me voting against Freedom of religion. Lucky that with freedom I can pick and choose what I do or don't want to vote for. Again its what makes this country the greatest on the planet.

 

[Pako]

Check my signature. The majority shouldn't be needed to vote on whether or not the government should treat citizens equally under the law. It's already written in our constitution.

Are the same rights given to Civil Union couples as married couples? Are they treated equally? Yes, Civil Union couples receive the same legal rights as married couples. I agree, they should and are treated equally under the law with Civil Unions.

Communism only works great on paper if you don't think about it much at all. Give it even a passing thought and you'd realize "hey, maybe people won't like being told what to do with every aspect of their lives."

Can't really argue with you there, however, the idea of a 'fair' and equal society where everyone is treated the same does sound somewhat like a utopia.

No, discrimination is NOT necessary and you have NOT established that. I could have used your same argument against the black civil rights movement - it doesn't hold any more water now than it did then.

Is there not tax incentives and rates that are different for different people and organizations? Is that not discrimination and/or reverse discrimination? I work just as hard as the next guy but only get paid $X where they get $XX? Certain groups get governmental days off that my employer doesn't recognize as paid days off, isn't that discriminating? Just skimming the surface, but I think you get the gest of what I'm talking about. The solution to the wage issue, for example, is to get a better paying job. I have that right and choice. Let me parallel that with homosexuals that want rights as married couples...they have the choice and the right for Civil Union to obtain a better life for them. They are not being denied rights, they are given rights should they decide to pursue them.

People stood up to the discrimination. That's the difference. I agree that there are other laws that are discriminatory. They need fixing as well. That doesn't justify keeping other laws that we know violate the constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.

The flaw I see in a lot of laws is that they are generally put into practice for legitimate reasons. It isn't until someone finds a way to exploit that law (usually for personal gain) does it become corrupt, thus the bureaucracy, corruption, and excess fat in our current system today.

 

[Duke]

Yes.

That does not make it any less discriminatory.

None of those things are used by the government.

I bet money the majority of the homosexual community would love to just be called people and not have to be labelled because they aren't like you or I.

+ rep for Foolkiller, especially since he's coming at this with a religious perspective, yet still manages to see what the concept of "equal rights" means.

 

[Pako]

I bet money the majority of the homosexual community would love to just be called people and not have to be labelled because they aren't like you or I.

Well...umm..., I'm just a person unless you want to categorize me. In that case, I'm a heterosexual male of Irish, English, and Scottish decent...., although it is rumored that there may be some Polynesian heritage in there as well. I won't say I'm something I'm not just for special treatment or benefits that I would otherwise not be privileged to.

 

[Duke]

Danoff, I don't believe for one second that people are willing to die and send their children to die for logic and rationality. They are willing to die for an ideal.

You're making the assumption that logic and rationality cannot be an "ideal". For most of us arguing on my side of this debate, that's precisely what it is - an ideal.

For a concept that there is a place where you have to earn what you have, but you can have almost anything.

... unless you're gay.

Where you're children and family can live without constant persecution.

...unless they're gay.

People will die for the first sentence in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence.

And I will die for the Constitution, which is after all a much-refined document (much refined even before the later amendments) that actually states the foundation of our US government, rather than a simple expression of rebellion against tyranny and mentions nothing about the method or laws of governance.

However, there are some titles that deserve respect and have derived specifically from tradition. The term "marriage" doesn't come up at all in the constitution. Why should the law then be able to change a title it doesn't define?

If it has no authority to change the legal definition of "marriage", then where did it get the authority to make the arbitrary "man and woman" definition in the first place?

I won't say I'm something I'm not just for special treatment or benefits that I would otherwise not be privileged to.

So, you're saying gay people just say they're gay because the clothes are better? Or what? Or are you denying the possibility that gay people actually can be in stable, lifelong, committed, loving relationships?

 

[Swift]

You're making the assumption that logic and rationality cannot be an "ideal". For most of us arguing on my side of this debate, that's precisely what it is - an ideal.

Well, looking at the one thread about logic. I would think there would have to be a basis to start from and then logical conclusions. Not logic itself being a foundation.

... unless you're gay.

...unless they're gay.

Or black, or hindu, or latin, or polish. Do I have to go on?

And I will die for the Constitution, which is after all a much-refined document (much refined even before the later amendments) that actually states the foundation of our US government, rather than a simple expression of rebellion against tyranny and mentions nothing about the method or laws of governance.

Wow Duke, you really missed my point there. My point is that the constitiuion is a logical extension from the paragraph I quoted. So, I too, would die for the constitution. I'm simply talking about the foundation from which the ideals in the constitution came from.

If it has no authority to change the legal definition of "marriage", then where did it get the authority to make the arbitrary "man and woman" definition in the first place?

It shouldn't have. The government should have simply called it a union or something to that effect and left the titles to the people.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I don't believe for one second that people are willing to die and send their children to die for logic and rationality. They are willing to die for an ideal. For a concept that there is a place where you have to earn what you have, but you can have almost anything. Where you're children and family can live without constant persecution. People will die for the first sentence in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence.

Then we would have no soldiers who are single and childless. We'd have no soldiers with dead parents, with nothing but an ideal to fight for. The ideal is freedom, it's capitalism, it's a country where you are not discriminated against by your government - that's what people fight for. They want everyone they love to live in that world friends, family, anyone. But they also want that world to exist for humanity in general, not just the people closest to them.

No, I reject outright the notion that family is the only thing worth fighting for.

I understand where Famine, Duke and Danoff are coming from. They have a very strong case. The problem is that our government has given marriage legal implications. If it wasn't for that, this discussion would not be happening.

Agreed.

It's all about titles guys. Make no mistake, it has jack to do with rights and all that. If it did, the gay community wouldn't be fighting for marriage, they would be fighting for the same legal privileges of marriage. There are some titles I have no problem giving up. Like "African-American". However, there are some titles that deserve respect and have derived specifically from tradition. The term "marriage" doesn't come up at all in the constitution. Why should the law then be able to change a title it doesn't define?

But equal treatment from the law certainly does. I honsetly can't believe you said this. You're right, marriage doesn't come up in the constitution, I guess I shouldn't ever refer to the consitution in this discussion... is there anything that could possibly be relevant to this discussion in the constitution...

let me think....

Equal protection? Why yes, yes I think that's the part of the constitution that says that the government should not discriminate against it's people based on arbitrary things like skin color, weight, sexual orientation, wealth, fashion sense...

Are the same rights given to Civil Union couples as married couples? Are they treated equally? Yes, Civil Union couples receive the same legal rights as married couples. I agree, they should and are treated equally under the law with Civil Unions.

"Separate but equal"

I've already defeated this line of thinking. You didn't respond.

Is there not tax incentives and rates that are different for different people and organizations? Is that not discrimination and/or reverse discrimination? I work just as hard as the next guy but only get paid $X where they get $XX? Certain groups get governmental days off that my employer doesn't recognize as paid days off, isn't that discriminating? Just skimming the surface, but I think you get the gest of what I'm talking about. The solution to the wage issue, for example, is to get a better paying job. I have that right and choice. Let me parallel that with homosexuals that want rights as married couples...they have the choice and the right for Civil Union to obtain a better life for them. They are not being denied rights, they are given rights should they decide to pursue them.

Just categorized, by the government away from married people so that married people can retain a legal title (very anti-American by the way) that gay people cannot have. Again, I point out that examples of discrimination currently in the government does not justify keeping other forms of discrimination around - we need to get rid of all of it because we all pay for the government and it represents all of us.

...and again I point out that "separate but equal" is not equal. I'm suprised I'm the one pointing that out to you.

I can and I do when ever I walk into a voting booth. If it is my religious belief that gays should not be married then I have the RIGHT to vote in that manner.

Check my signature. You do NOT have the right to vote away the RIGHTS of others. And I will oppose you at every pass if you attempt to suggest that others should vote along side you to take away one of the most fundamental aspects of America - equal treatment from the government. It's un-American, it's irrational, and it's immoral.

 

[Pako]

*snip*
So, you're saying gay people just say they're gay because the clothes are better? Or what? Or are you denying the possibility that gay people actually can be in stable, lifelong, committed, loving relationships?

I'm saying that there are specific groups that have been identified or classified (usually by their own free will and motivation) so they can receive benefits for being in that group. Not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying it happens and probably justly so in a lot of cases. Why are these classifications acceptable where others are not, referring to Danoff's statements that refute Civil Unions because it unjustly puts a classification on Homosexuals. If I meet certain classifications to obtain benefits through the law, it is my right to accept those benefits, but I'm not going to say I'm something I'm not to obtain those benefits that do not apply to me. I have to look to see if there are other programs or laws that will fit my particular circumstance to obtain those benefits.