Gay Marriage

[Sun Tzu]

Should gay marriages be legal?

Pretty valid, socially relevant, straight forward poll. I'm curious to see what the mix is here at FOFC on the topic.

If you can't contribute to the conversation without flying off the handle and subsequently blaming the OP for your actions, please refrain from posting. k thx

P.S. - Go Niners!

[Matthean]

P.S. - Go Niners!

How dare you post something so controversial. :D

[Honolulu_Blue]

Based on the results of this past election, I really feel like this issue has finally made its way and it's only a matter of time now (could still be a while in some places) until this question is not all that much more controversial than asking whether people of different races should be allowed to marry.

[stevew]

Jesus wants Ray Lewis to win the Super Bowl.

[BillJasper]

Why do I care if two adults enter into a legal contract?

[Jas_lov]

It's just a matter of time before it's legal in all the states. Individual states are legalizing it left and right. Old people will die off and it's not an issue with younger people today.

[Chief Rum]

I put down yes, given the options here. But I have stated in the past my belief that there should be a difference between religious and legal marriage, which is why I support the creation of civil unions.

Religious marriages are recognized before God and deity or whatsoever religion wishes to recognize them, per the dictums of their faith.

Legal marriages are recognized before Obama and the rest of the beauracratic plebes in the various governments in this country.

[CrimsonFox]

what do you care?
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[Kodos]

I see it as more like this. There are basic marriages that carry all legal rights, and then you can add on "as recognized by the _____ church" bonus designation if you like.

[flounder]

Why should gays get to miss out? They should have to put up with the same crap the rest of us do.

[BYU 14]

Why should gays get to miss out? They should have to put up with the same crap the rest of us do.

:D

[stevew]

I loved the Key and Peele take on it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jitocz4kB3k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[DanGarion]

Religious marriages are recognized before God and deity or whatsoever religion wishes to recognize them, per the dictums of their faith.



But who decides what marriages God recognizes? Honestly there are 100 other things God condemns that no one gives a shit about when it comes to marriage. Why should those that "run" the church be allowed to pick and choose the current flavor of the weak? (and yes I wrote that the way I intended to, because I don't believe those that "run" the church should be judging others based on their personal beliefs.)

[DanGarion]

I feel that if you made the poll private there would be a lot more No votes...

[BYU 14]

But who decides what marriages God recognizes? Honestly there are 100 other things God condemns that no one gives a shit about when it comes to marriage. Why should those that "run" the church be allowed to pick and choose the current flavor of the weak? (and yes I wrote that the way I intended to, because I don't believe in those that "run" the church should be judging others based on their personal beliefs.)

Good point DG.

[Lathum]

Why should I care what 2 people who love each other do wit htheir lives? I have no more right to tell them how they can live their lives then they do to tell me.

I have a gay cousin and her and her partner are 2 of the most well adjusted people I know. They have 2 great kids and are just as much a loving family as any other I know.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I see it as more like this. There are basic marriages that carry all legal rights, and then you can add on "as recognized by the _____ church" bonus designation if you like.

This.

Marriage is something that was around long before the USA and it will be around long after. Our government should not be in the business of sanctioning "marriage" or not sanctioning it. As far as legal agreements between persons who get married, that's all good. But to tell people they have less or no rights based on who they want to marry? No. They should be out of that business. It makes as much sense to me as denying a driver's license to someone because they are gay.

I highly doubt we'll ever see a politician take a stand that gets the government out of the marriage game. Who wants to be painted as being "against marriage," even if they are only taking a common sense approach.

We all know that any politician who uses common sense will have some lunatic on the other side who gets everybody's panties in a bunch.

[JPhillips]

Based on the results of this past election, I really feel like this issue has finally made its way and it's only a matter of time now (could still be a while in some places) until this question is not all that much more controversial than asking whether people of different races should be allowed to marry.

Things have changed a lot. When Reagan was elected less than half the country thought interracial marriages should be legal.

[Chief Rum]

what do you care?
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

Personally, I don't. I am not very religious. But I recognize that there are many that very much are, and they believe marriage is a religious institution.

I think it makes sense to respect their beluiefs while also creating a non-religious form of marriage that allows for gay rights equality.

[Chief Rum]

But who decides what marriages God recognizes? Honestly there are 100 other things God condemns that no one gives a shit about when it comes to marriage. Why should those that "run" the church be allowed to pick and choose the current flavor of the weak? (and yes I wrote that the way I intended to, because I don't believe those that "run" the church should be judging others based on their personal beliefs.)

Every faith is entitled to their own beliefs. Obviously, their beliefs only apply to themselves. It shouldn't affect anyone else.

Unless you're saying you want the government to tell people what to believe?

[Chief Rum]

I agree with the general thought that the only government intervention into marriage should be the legal ramifications of it. Gays should enjoy the same benefits through legal marriage as everyone else, and all that follows it (family rights; if it comes to it, rights through divorce; etc.).

What religion calls it is really no one's business. Some can comdemn, others can support, but the only thing that would matter, religiously, is the faith the couple themselves choose to recognize it (and they don't even need that to be married).

[Suburban Rhythm]

Why should gays get to miss out? They should have to put up with the same crap the rest of us do.

This...they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us!

But truthfully, I don't understand the "moral" reasons trotted out over and over for why it "ruins" marriage for the rest of us. There are plenty of married couples doing things right now you probably don't agree with, and it's having zero impact on your marriage.

I'm a practicing Catholic, but think "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you", the overridding theme of what the church is supposed to stand for, supercedes any individual, one line item someone selects.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes, gays should be allowed to legally marry each other. And the homosexual marriages which are performed at my church (though I only know of one off hand) should be able to be recognized under the law just as the heterosexual marriages performed there.

[Sun Tzu]

I feel that if you made the poll private there would be a lot more No votes...

Agreed. My not making the poll private was just so I could get a better gauge on who felt whatever way and was actually willing to say so publicly.

[Marc Vaughan]

I find it frankly breath taking that religious people are against gay marriages because they're not 'traditional' ...

A traditional marriage at the time of the bible was as much a financial transaction as anything else, often involving the marriage of incredibly young girls to much older men - such marriages today are looked down upon in most places as being out dated and definitely not something to 'strive towards'.

Times have changed and so has our interpretation of what is moral and right - hence the modern interpretation of marriage within most western societies ... the approval of Gay marriage is just an extension of those changes imho.

[Chief Rum]

Yes, gays should be allowed to legally marry each other. And the homosexual marriages which are performed at my church (though I only know of one off hand) should be able to be recognized under the law just as the heterosexual marriages performed there.

You see, this is where I think we need to be mroe clear. The government shouldn't have anything to do with recognizing your church's marriages, either hetero or homo. That's between the couple, your congregation, your fatih leaders and God.

The government ideally won't be recognizing anything done in a church, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the married couple. They will only "recognize" two people submitting paperwork for a legal contract under the codes for marriage. How far we go with that--a signed contract, a separate, simple civil service before a judge, whatever--is up to the government.

[lighthousekeeper]

Agreed. My not making the poll private was just so I could get a better gauge on who felt whatever way and was actually willing to say so publicly.

you should followup with a private poll.

[DanGarion]

you should followup with a private poll.

Yeah and then we can all take guesses and who lies in public!

[lungs]

Let the gays marry legally, but don't force it down any churches throat.

[Lathum]

does anyone else find calling gay people "the gays" or "gays" a little odd? We typically don't say "the blacks" or "the mexicans." Seems very 1950's pre tolerance to me.

[cartman]

You see, this is where I think we need to be mroe clear. The government shouldn't have anything to do with recognizing your church's marriages, either hetero or homo. That's between the couple, your congregation, your fatih leaders and God.

The government ideally won't be recognizing anything done in a church, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the married couple. They will only "recognize" two people submitting paperwork for a legal contract under the codes for marriage. How far we go with that--a signed contract, a separate, simple civil service before a judge, whatever--is up to the government.

I'm pretty sure it already works like this. If you get married in a religious ceremony without first getting a marriage license, that marriage isn't recognized by the state. That isn't absolute, but unless you've gone the common law route it is difficult. Once you get a marriage license, the state doesn't care if you have a religious ceremony or not.

[Sun Tzu]

does anyone else find calling gay people "the gays" or "gays" a little odd? We typically don't say "the blacks" or "the mexicans." Seems very 1950's pre tolerance to me.

I thought about how I would word this beforehand. I ultimately decided "gays" was acceptable when thinking about how most people refer to others, anyway.

Example: I'm Jewish, and I generally call other people of Jewish faith/ethnicity "Jews." I think the same applies to Christians, Hindus, Whites, African-Americans, etc. The term "gays" struck me as being only insensitive if you're the type of person that's constantly on the lookout for something to be offended by.

[lungs]

does anyone else find calling gay people "the gays" or "gays" a little odd? We typically don't say "the blacks" or "the mexicans." Seems very 1950's pre tolerance to me.

Would it make you feel better if I removed "the"?

Seems pretty damned stupid to complain about putting "the" in front of something. If I said "the queers" or "the fags", I could see the reaction.

edit: I mis read you.. "the" had nothing to do with it. But my point still stands in terms of calling gay people gay. Isn't that what they call themselves? My Mexican employees are Mexican, and the Nicaraguans are Nicaraguan. They are Mexicans and Nicaraguans.

I don't get the outrage.

[Suburban Rhythm]

does anyone else find calling gay people "the gays" or "gays" a little odd? We typically don't say "the blacks" or "the mexicans." Seems very 1950's pre tolerance to me.

I thought about how I would word this beforehand. I ultimately decided "gays" was acceptable when thinking about how most people refer to others, anyway.

Example: I'm Jewish, and I generally call other people of Jewish faith/ethnicity "Jews." I think the same applies to Christians, Hindus, Whites, African-Americans, etc. The term "gays" struck me as being only insensitive if you're the type of person that's constantly on the lookout for something to be offended by.

Would it make you feel better if I removed "the"?

Seems pretty damned stupid to complain about putting "the" in front of something. If I said "the queers" or "the fags", I could see the reaction.

Seems like this needs to be a parody thread of the 'Saying "We" when talking about sports teams' thread

[Lathum]

no outrage, just seems a little non PC, that is all. Not offended in the least nor looking for something to be offended by.

[Chief Rum]

I'm pretty sure it already works like this. If you get married in a religious ceremony without first getting a marriage license, that marriage isn't recognized by the state. That isn't absolute, but unless you've gone the common law route it is difficult. Once you get a marriage license, the state doesn't care if you have a religious ceremony or not.

True. I'm not advocating that we do something drastically different. Just further codify the separation of church and state in this process, and open it up to both hetero and homosexual marriages.

[Chief Rum]

no outrage, just seems a little non PC, that is all. Not offended in the least nor looking for something to be offended by.

I actually can't stand the term African-American. It's way over the top PC, IMO, and should only be used in formal language. Blacks are blacks, whites are whites, etc. Mexicans is incorrectly used as a lump all, but I think saying "Latino" or "Hispanic" is acceptable.

Obviously, I am perfectly fine with using the terms gays and lesbians. Trying to say otherwise comes off as awkward, IMO.

[finketr]

I'm pretty sure it already works like this. If you get married in a religious ceremony without first getting a marriage license, that marriage isn't recognized by the state. That isn't absolute, but unless you've gone the common law route it is difficult. Once you get a marriage license, the state doesn't care if you have a religious ceremony or not.

I know this to be true in Virginia and Illinois. My brother and his wife had to go to the courthouse in VA to get their license even before the catholic church would marry them.

The same in illinois for my wife and I.

[JediKooter]

I actually can't stand the term African-American.

African-Americans is probably the worst of the bunch in my opinion when trying to apply it to someone skin color. I happen to actually know a couple 'African-Americans' and they are white as white can be. Born and raised in Africa, migrated to the US, are now US citizens and have 3 children. So yes, 'technically', they are African-American.

[Crapshoot]

Based on the results of this past election, I really feel like this issue has finally made its way and it's only a matter of time now (could still be a while in some places) until this question is not all that much more controversial than asking whether people of different races should be allowed to marry.

Yup. Silly question, especially in the 30 and under cohort.

FWIW, I wonder if this being a public poll biases the results some - a sort of Wilder-effect.

[Toddzilla]

tick-tock

[Subby]

Average age on the no votes is pretty interesting.

[Autumn]

African-Americans is probably the worst of the bunch in my opinion when trying to apply it to someone skin color. I happen to actually know a couple 'African-Americans' and they are white as white can be. Born and raised in Africa, migrated to the US, are now US citizens and have 3 children. So yes, 'technically', they are African-American.

Same is true though of using the term "black". There are a wide variety of skin tones in the world. Is someone of African ancestry to be called "black" even if their skin is not black? Is someone who identifies with a European ancestry "white" even if their skin is darker than someone who identifies as "black"? Do we call a Hispanic "black"?

My point is neither way of describing things works 100% of the time because these categories are fluid. But we need ways to describe things. African-American acknowledges that we're referring to someone's ancestry, not simply the color of their skin. I think a lot of people have found it an improvement to shift the focus in that way. The fact that there are still issues with it only shows that trying to describe "race" is an impossible thing.

[Autumn]

no outrage, just seems a little non PC, that is all. Not offended in the least nor looking for something to be offended by.

I definitely feel a difference in tone when someone says "gays" versus for example, "people who are gay," or "Mexicans" versus "Mexican people. I think there's something linguistically about replacing a person's personhood with a category. Adding "the" puts things over the top. Saying "The gays" or "the blacks" or "the mexicans" seems to make an even stronger statement of otherness, or lumping them into some thing of which they all must be a part. Maybe it's just because it's the terms that prejudiced people typically use? Or is there something in the linguistics that changes the tone of it.

[Lathum]

I definitely feel a difference in tone when someone says "gays" versus for example, "people who are gay," or "Mexicans" versus "Mexican people. I think there's something linguistically about replacing a person's personhood with a category. Adding "the" puts things over the top. Saying "The gays" or "the blacks" or "the mexicans" seems to make an even stronger statement of otherness, or lumping them into some thing of which they all must be a part. Maybe it's just because it's the terms that prejudiced people typically use? Or is there something in the linguistics that changes the tone of it.

Very well said, for me it is a tone thing. It comes off to me as carrying some distain for that group when it is said that way.

[Abe Sargent]

Neither. Here's what i think.


We should get rid of marriage as a legal entity. Allow anyone who wants to, male-male, male-female, female-female, multiple partners, ect to enter into civic unions.


Let churches marry whoever they feel okay marrying.


Get the state out of marriage completely and let's move on to teh next issue.

[lungs]

I definitely feel a difference in tone when someone says "gays" versus for example, "people who are gay," or "Mexicans" versus "Mexican people. I think there's something linguistically about replacing a person's personhood with a category. Adding "the" puts things over the top. Saying "The gays" or "the blacks" or "the mexicans" seems to make an even stronger statement of otherness, or lumping them into some thing of which they all must be a part. Maybe it's just because it's the terms that prejudiced people typically use? Or is there something in the linguistics that changes the tone of it.

Understandable. It's impossible to read tone on a message board. You could even take the word 'homosexual' and give it a negative tone. Think of a slow southern drawl "homa sekshul". "That guy over there.... he's one of those homosexuals"

[RedKingGold]

Marriage = no.

Civil union/domestic partnership w/ all legal rights granted to married couples = yes.

[RedKingGold]

To clarify my opinion, religious instutitions should not have definitions of "marriage" forced upon them. Religious institutions should have the right to deny recognizing or granting a marriage to individuals who do not follow their principles.

That being said, the government does not have the same right. The government should allow same-sex couples to enjoy the same tax benefits and other which heterosexual couples enjoy.

[Autumn]

Yeah, I really wish someone would just split the knot by instituting only legal unions by the government, and leave the word marriage in the public market place. Leaves no one anything to complain about as far as I can see.

[JediKooter]

Same is true though of using the term "black". There are a wide variety of skin tones in the world. Is someone of African ancestry to be called "black" even if their skin is not black? Is someone who identifies with a European ancestry "white" even if their skin is darker than someone who identifies as "black"? Do we call a Hispanic "black"?

My point is neither way of describing things works 100% of the time because these categories are fluid. But we need ways to describe things. African-American acknowledges that we're referring to someone's ancestry, not simply the color of their skin. I think a lot of people have found it an improvement to shift the focus in that way. The fact that there are still issues with it only shows that trying to describe "race" is an impossible thing.

I see what you're saying, but, African American almost always implies that they mean black for those who use it as opposed to actually referring to someone's ancestry. Almost like they are afraid to just say 'black'. I'll buy into the 'African-American' title when people start using it and are not referring to ones skin color.

[BillJasper]

Marriage = no.

Civil union/domestic partnership w/ all legal rights granted to married couples = yes.

Then what's the difference?

[Autumn]

I see what you're saying, but, African American almost always implies that they mean black for those who use it as opposed to actually referring to someone's ancestry. Almost like they are afraid to just say 'black'. I'll buy into the 'African-American' title when people start using it and are not referring to ones skin color.

I don't think that's true. dark-skinnned Caribbean people who are not of African descent don't use the term African-American. Dark-skinned people of New Zealander origin don't use the term. But people who are African-American but have fairly light skin do use the term.

I agree that people often misuse it. They might call someone African-American without any idea what their real ancestry is. Hell, I've seen morons in my classes call people in Africa African-American. But I'm not interested in Language for Dummies. I'm interested in whether a term is more accurate, less discriminatory and more meaningful. In some senses using the term "black" makes sense since it's what people are actually responding to, someone's skin color. But using a more accurate and meaningful term might help to remind those people that trying to lump people together because of pigmentation doesn't make sense, and in fact has been and is hugely damaging. I think this is the meaning of PC, in essence, is that by using better terms we can remind ourselves to think in a better way.

[cartman]

To clarify my opinion, religious instutitions should not have definitions of "marriage" forced upon them. Religious institutions should have the right to deny recognizing or granting a marriage to individuals who do not follow their principles.

That being said, the government does not have the same right. The government should allow same-sex couples to enjoy the same tax benefits and other which heterosexual couples enjoy.

Isn't that the case as it stands today? A church isn't forced to hold a ceremony for anyone.

[larrymcg421]

I'm totally opposed to disconnecting government from marriage. That hurts not just gay people, but also straight people who want to be married, but don't want to go through the church. Like it or not, marriage is not just a religious institution, but a secular social institution. The term has importance for more than just religious people.

I'm also opposed to a separate status for gay and straight couples. Legal marriage for gay couples doesn't infringe on anyone's religious rights. You can still go to church, listen to your pastor attack gay marriage, read your bible, etc. There is no tangible way it harms religion. The Catholic Church already has a different definition of marriage than the government, as they don't allow divorced people to get married. The government allowing divorced people to get married hasn't resulted in the Catholic church being forced to do anything different.

How about we just keep the same system, allow same sex couples to get legally married, not force churches to do anything different, and everyone against gay marriage can go about their business because it won't change their lives one bit, as has been in the case in every state where same sex marriage has been legalized?

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I really wish someone would just split the knot by instituting only legal unions by the government, and leave the word marriage in the public market place. Leaves no one anything to complain about as far as I can see.

Except a lot of those that don't want to grant marriage rights would also be against granting equal civil union rights.

[larrymcg421]

To clarify my opinion, religious instutitions should not have definitions of "marriage" forced upon them. Religious institutions should have the right to deny recognizing or granting a marriage to individuals who do not follow their principles.

But you don't need to create a different term for this to happen. In every state where gay marriage is legal, religious institutions have not had to recognize any marriage they disagree with. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the Catholic church already has a different definition of marriage than the government, and it hasn't forced them to do anything different.

[Autumn]

Except a lot of those that don't want to grant marriage rights would also be against granting equal civil union rights.

Yeah, but the only leg they have to stand on right now (and I think it's a phantom leg myself) is that the word marriage has a more than legal meaning, but a cultural and religious one. So take away the word marriage and they now have nothing to argue about. I don't believe for a nanosecond people will stop arguing, but it's a compromise that I think removes any possible grounds for a legal argument on the issue. There's no argument against gay marriage that's not religious, so remove any language that has any possible religious connotation and we're done here.

[Abe Sargent]

I see what you're saying, but, African American almost always implies that they mean black for those who use it as opposed to actually referring to someone's ancestry. Almost like they are afraid to just say 'black'. I'll buy into the 'African-American' title when people start using it and are not referring to ones skin color.

I had alot of residents who really hated the AA title for themselves at a school with a large number of black students. They were African international students and people just assumed that the term African-American applied to them and constantly called them that. To my mind, after seeing the issues the AA term involves, black is simply much better.

[Autumn]

But you don't need to create a different term for this to happen. In every state where gay marriage is legal, religious institutions have not had to recognize any marriage they disagree with. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the Catholic church already has a different definition of marriage than the government, and it hasn't forced them to do anything different.

No, you shouldn't need to. But the opponents are clearly convinced that they'll be "Forced" to perform gay marriages, that there will be civil suits that will follow these legal actions. A clearly secular civil union available for all Americans would remove this worry, theoretically, and just makes more logical sense.

[spleen1015]

I'm totally opposed to disconnecting government from marriage. That hurts not just gay people, but also straight people who want to be married, but don't want to go through the church. Like it or not, marriage is not just a religious institution, but a secular social institution. The term has importance for more than just religious people.

I'm also opposed to a separate status for gay and straight couples. Legal marriage for gay couples doesn't infringe on anyone's religious rights. You can still go to church, listen to your pastor attack gay marriage, read your bible, etc. There is no tangible way it harms religion. The Catholic Church already has a different definition of marriage than the government, as they don't allow divorced people to get married. The government allowing divorced people to get married hasn't resulted in the Catholic church being forced to do anything different.

How about we just keep the same system, allow same sex couples to get legally married, not force churches to do anything different, and everyone against gay marriage can go about their business because it won't change their lives one bit, as has been in the case in every state where same sex marriage has been legalized?

Makes complete sense to me. That's why it will never happen.

EDIT - I shouldn't say never because it will one day.

[DanGarion]

Then religious institutions can find their own name for it instead of marriage. Why make everyone else have to change?

[JediKooter]

I don't think that's true. dark-skinnned Caribbean people who are not of African descent don't use the term African-American. Dark-skinned people of New Zealander origin don't use the term. But people who are African-American but have fairly light skin do use the term.

I agree that people often misuse it. They might call someone African-American without any idea what their real ancestry is. Hell, I've seen morons in my classes call people in Africa African-American. But I'm not interested in Language for Dummies. I'm interested in whether a term is more accurate, less discriminatory and more meaningful. In some senses using the term "black" makes sense since it's what people are actually responding to, someone's skin color. But using a more accurate and meaningful term might help to remind those people that trying to lump people together because of pigmentation doesn't make sense, and in fact has been and is hugely damaging. I think this is the meaning of PC, in essence, is that by using better terms we can remind ourselves to think in a better way.

Hehe! :) I don't disagree with you 100%. I think we (the generic 'we') put too much weight into what someone looks like to begin with and a need to group them together. I just don't like it when people who use the term African American who think that it's a ubiquitous term for black people here in the US. I hate the hyphenated labels. Which are worse in my opinion, because it makes an even bigger assumption that that person is from that part of the world.

My best friend since we were 13 is black, he says, "Don't call me African American, I'm American, period. My ancestors might be from Africa, but, I'm not". The way he explains it, makes the most sense to me. So that's what I tend to go with.

[Chief Rum]

Then religious institutions can find their own name for it instead of marriage. Why make everyone else have to change?

Right. That word comes from religion. So we tell them to change?

You know, I have this fancy little OfficeMax calculator on my desk here. It is very useful. I have decided to call it "God".

Hey, churchies, go change your deity's name to something else, so we don't get confused all right?

[DanGarion]

Right. That word comes from religion. So we tell them to change?

You know, I have this fancy little OfficeMax calculator on my desk here. It is very useful. I have decided to call it "God".

Hey, churchies, go change your deity's name to something else, so we don't get confused all right?
Show me the proof that the word marriage comes from religion, because I've researched this before and was never able to determine that.

And honestly bible quotes don't work since the bible language has changed MANY times throughout time.

[larrymcg421]

No, you shouldn't need to. But the opponents are clearly convinced that they'll be "Forced" to perform gay marriages, that there will be civil suits that will follow these legal actions. A clearly secular civil union available for all Americans would remove this worry, theoretically, and just makes more logical sense.

But it's a compromise that gay citizens do not want. They're not just after the benefits. They want to get married, not civilly unioned.

[sabotai]

And honestly bible quotes don't work since the bible language has changed MANY times throughout time.

Not to mention, marriage predates the Bible.

[DanGarion]

Not to mention, marriage predates the Bible.

DING DING DING, we have a winner.

[ISiddiqui]

Right. That word comes from religion. So we tell them to change?

If there was any truth to that statement, you may have a point ;).

[larrymcg421]

Right. That word comes from religion. So we tell them to change?

You know, I have this fancy little OfficeMax calculator on my desk here. It is very useful. I have decided to call it "God".

Hey, churchies, go change your deity's name to something else, so we don't get confused all right?

Worth pointing out again that giving legal status to gay marriage would not force any religion to change one damn thing.

[Chief Rum]

Show me the proof that the word marriage comes from religion, because I've researched this before and was never able to determine that.

And honestly bible quotes don't work since the bible language has changed MANY times throughout time.

So you're for billions of people to change a term they have used for thousands of years, because we can't definitively trace whether its origin is secular or religious, all for the benefit of a small subset of the population (1% or so is gay, IIRC)?

Unreasonable much?

[Chief Rum]

Worth pointing out again that giving legal status to gay marriage would not force any religion to change one damn thing.

Worth pointing out that I have never said otherwise.

[molson]

The bible doesn't even say anything about gay marriage. And neither homosexuality or gay marriage is incompatible in any way with Christianity. Not all Christians, not even a majority anymore, go to church and "listen to their pastor attack gay marriage." Religion is always an evolving thing and people are certainly free to support or oppose whatever they want within that, but when they do choose this battle, it does promote and encourage misunderstandings and ignorant prejudice against Christianity and religion in general.

The Christian case for gay marriage - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/02/opinion/la-oe-pearce-christianity-gay-marriage-20121202)

[finketr]

Worth pointing out again that giving legal status to gay marriage would not force any religion to change one damn thing.

Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

[cartman]

Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Churches are exempt. Not sure where you are hearing that they must, but that is simply not the case.

[Chief Rum]

But it's a compromise that gay citizens do not want. They're not just after the benefits. They want to get married, not civilly unioned.

They can call it what they want. Just as religion doesn't have to change a thing, neither do homosexual couples have to accept being called "unioned". They can still be married and call themselves married.

It is merely a separate term for legal purposes that allows the Christian fundamentalists to not feel that what they feel is a sacred religious ceremony is being usurped for a purpose that doesn't fit their beliefs.

Keep in mind, again, I only support this as a compromise to their beliefs while supporting full marriage rights for gays. I am not religious in the least bit, and I don't think of marriage as any different from any rational perspective when it is done between heterosexual couples in a religious setting and homosexual couples in a secular setting.

[Autumn]

But it's a compromise that gay citizens do not want. They're not just after the benefits. They want to get married, not civilly unioned.

Gay couples do not want a civil union while everyone else gets a marriage. But if everyone gets a civil union, and marriages are left to your own choice, then I think most of them would back that. The fact is it shouldn't be different for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Either they all get marriages or all get civil unions. That seems to me the crux of the argument. If calling my marriage a civil union makes things easier, I say we do it.

[DanGarion]

So you're for billions of people to change a term they have used for thousands of years, because we can't definitively trace whether its origin is secular or religious, all for the benefit of a small subset of the population (1% or so is gay, IIRC)?

Unreasonable much?

Did I say to change it for gay people? My wife and I were not married in a church. Thus if you changed it for those that didn't get married in a church I would be forced to changed my married stats to civil union. Why should I have to change my status because a church has adopted the word marriage?

[larrymcg421]

The bible doesn't even say anything about gay marriage. And neither homosexuality or gay marriage is incompatible in any way with Christianity. Not all Christians, not even a majority anymore, go to church and "listen to their pastor attack gay marriage." Religion is always an evolving thing and people are certainly free to support or oppose whatever they want within that, but when they do choose this battle, it does promote and encourage misunderstandings and ignorant prejudice against Christianity and religion in general.

The Christian case for gay marriage - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/02/opinion/la-oe-pearce-christianity-gay-marriage-20121202)

I never said all or even a majority of them do that. As a Christian myself, I'm well aware of how homosexuality and gay marriage are not imcompatible with Christianity. The point of that sentence was for the Christians opposing marriage on the basis that marriage is a sin would not have their religious beliefs affected in any way.

[Chief Rum]

Gay couples do not want a civil union while everyone else gets a marriage. But if everyone gets a civil union, and marriages are left to your own choice, then I think most of them would back that. The fact is it shouldn't be different for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Either they all get marriages or all get civil unions. That seems to me the crux of the argument. If calling my marriage a civil union makes things easier, I say we do it.

:+1:

[sabotai]

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

Yes. If a couple gets a civil union in New Jersey, and then moves to another state for employment (or any reason), that state does not have to recognize their civil union. If the state marries them, they do. That's why civil unions do not have the same rights as marriages right now. There is no federal protection of civil unions across state borders. (Edit: Unless it's changed recently. I haven't been keeping up with politics much lately.)

[Chief Rum]

Did I say to change it for gay people? My wife and I were not married in a church. Thus if you changed it for those that didn't get married in a church I would be forced to changed my married stats to civil union. Why should I have to change my status because a church has adopted the word marriage?

So your big fight here is because you don't want to sign legal docs that replace "Marital Status" with "Union Status"?

Do you really think this changes anything for your marriage? Or anyone's? It's a legal term.

[DanGarion]

Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

You mean the one that requires employers to provide basic healthcare rights?

Catholic Groups Fight Contraceptive Rule, But Many Already Offer Coverage : Shots - Health News : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage)

[DanGarion]

So your big fight here is because you don't want to sign legal docs that replace "Marital Status" with "Union Status"?

Do you really think this changes anything for your marriage? Or anyone's? It's a legal term.

Then why give the word to the church? We can keep going around in the circle all day. The churches don't own the word. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage and if the church wants to use the term that is perfectly within their right. But just because they choose to use the term doesn't mean it should be denied to anyone else.

[Chief Rum]

Then why give the word to the church? We can keep going around in the circle all day. The churches don't own the word. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage and if the church wants to use the term that is perfectly within their right. But just because they choose to use the term doesn't mean it should be denied to anyone else.

Governments control the legal process, and we're talking about a legal status.

[DanGarion]

Governments control the legal process, and we're talking about a legal status.

I realize that. It's already in place that marriage is a legal status. Why change that just because churches won't recognize certain ones? Two people sign a legal document that says they are married that's that. The church can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't be stepping on mine or anyone else's rights or legal status.

[Chief Rum]

I realize that. It's already in place that marriage is a legal status. Why change that just because churches won't recognize certain ones? Two people sign a legal document that says they are married that's that. The church can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't be stepping on mine or anyone else's rights or legal status.

You don't care about anyone else's beliefs as long as you don't have to change a thing, right? Changing the legal term to civil union does nothing at all to you, but you're still against it.

It's just a legal term. I'm struggling to understand why it's such a big deal to you, when it changes nothing for you, but doing this change respects the beliefs of fundamental Christians while opening the door for them to support gay marriage as a legal institution.

[Crapshoot]

You don't care about anyone else's beliefs as long as you don't have to change a thing, right? Changing the legal term to civil union does nothing at all to you, but you're still against it.

It's just a legal term. I'm struggling to understand why it's such a big deal to you, when it changes nothing for you, but doing this change respects the beliefs of those people while opening the door for them to support gay marriage as a legal institution.

No, its on you. Religion does not own the right to the word marriage, and it is folly to pretend so. If people are offended by two people choosing to get married , the onus is on them to get over it. No church needs to marry two gay people - but the idea that the church retains some sort of veto right over the definition of the word marriage and its legal ramifications is silly.

[RedKingGold]

Are we really throwing up our hands about a "word"? Who cares what the relationship is called so long as same sex and opposite sex couples are provided the same rights and opportunities by the government.

The First Amendment also provides religious entities rights too and those rights need to be respected along with the rights of gay men and women.

[tarcone]

I doubt Missouri will have gay marriage any time soon. We have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

If we allow gay marriage, why shouldnt we allow polygamy? What about their rights? Why is that against the law? If a dude can stomach having multiple wives, more power to him. He is a better man than me.

[Chief Rum]

No, its on you. Religion does not own the right to the word marriage, and it is folly to pretend so. If people are offended by two people choosing to get married , the onus is on them to get over it. No church needs to marry two gay people - but the idea that the church retains some sort of veto right over the definition of the word marriage and its legal ramifications is silly.

What's on me? I support gay marriage.

I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred, and that to use it as a legal term to define a union they believe is a sin goes against their belief. As such, they will not support equal rights for gays when this term is used to define a homosexual union.

It's likely that it will be much more difficult to acquire nation-wide rights for gays without compromising a little here, as the Christian fundamentalist segment of the population holds significant sway over this country's laws.

If a little change in the code from "marriage" to "civil union" is made, and the end result is that equal rights are given to both hetero and homosexual unions, religious or not, everywhere in the US, is that not a worthy compromise to make?

[Raiders Army]

You wouldn't like my answer why I said yes.

[GreenMonster]

Why should I care what 2 people who love each other do wit htheir lives? I have no more right to tell them how they can live their lives then they do to tell me.

I have a gay cousin and her and her partner are 2 of the most well adjusted people I know. They have 2 great kids and are just as much a loving family as any other I know.

I have already moved on past this issue, to polygamy. Why should I care if 3 or 4 people who love each other do with there lives. I am still looking for people that are willing to marry there pets.

[molson]

If we allow gay marriage, why shouldnt we allow polygamy? What about their rights? Why is that against the law? If a dude can stomach having multiple wives, more power to him. He is a better man than me.

I bet at some level its easier to have 5 wives than 1. Because they'd be competitive and they'd work out their frustrations and aggression with each other instead of you.

[JediKooter]

I bet at some level its easier to have 5 wives than 1. Because they'd be competitive and they'd work out their frustrations and aggression with each other instead of you.

It's all fun and games until all 5 of their cycles are in sync. Then it's a living hell...

[Chief Rum]

It's all fun and games until all 5 of their cycles are in sync. Then it's a living hell...

Five separate houses. That way, they don't get in sync.

[JediKooter]

Five separate houses. That way, they don't get in sync.

I like the way you think.

[DanGarion]

I like the way you think.

He's just been watching Sister Wives... ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

If a dude can stomach having multiple wives

How about multiple sets of in-laws and extended families? The latter alone should cause any polygamist to be locked up until he regains his sanity.

[JediKooter]

He's just been watching Sister Wives... ;)

I'm not sure what that is, but, from the title...sounds very West Virginian. :)

[Autumn]

Frankly I've never understood the legal argument against polygamy. It looks like a system that is often abused, yes, from what little I know, and clearly an expression of a patriarchal society. And it would give the IRS some extra work to figure out. But fundamentally I don't see why it necessarily needs to be illegal. So that seems a natural element to include on the slippery slope. Maybe there's some good argument about it, I've never really read much on the issue. It's funny that the argument about marriage needing to be based on Christian values doesn't get applied to Mormons.

[Draft Dodger]

to preserve the sanctity of marriage, I believe that all marriages should be conducted by an Elvis impersonator

[JediKooter]

If this shit wasn't happening: Former Child Bride 'Escapes' FLDS Community With Children - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/former-child-bride-escapes-flds-community-children-160347134--abc-news-topstories.html) I really don't see what the problem is with polygamy. If a man thinks he's man enough to handle multiple wives, have at it. Same if a woman thinks she can handle multiple husbands. Just don't bitch about getting nagged all the time by your 5 wives or complain that your 5 husbands don't leave the toilet seat down.

[SteveMax58]

Voted yes because all people deserve the same rights (or punishments as it were).

I almost voted no simply because I think all marriages should be technically classified as Civil Unions and given the same rights & benefits but not called marriages as that has religious connotation. And the more we can keep separate religion & state the better off we are.

My only reason for voting yes is because I look at the poll "as it stands today".

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I had a dream once that I was dating a woman who was beautiful and wealthy. She then informed me that while she loved me, she had someone else in her life who was very interested in meeting me. She introduced me to her wife, who was even hotter. They wanted to marry me so they could have a man in their lives.

I was really pissed when I woke up from that dream.

[EagleFan]

Marriage = no.

Civil union/domestic partnership w/ all legal rights granted to married couples = yes.

I used to say that but then I realized. WTF does wording matter?

A marriage is a marriage. Let them get married if they choose. If Westboro Baptist doesn't see them as married (or *insert church here* feels the same way) that is their right but as far as the law is concerned they are married and that is what counts to them (I doubt that any gay couple gives a crap if certain religious groups don't 'recognize' their marriage; hell, the catholic church doesn't recognize my wife's marriage to the point where they wouldn't let her take communion at her own mother's funeral because a female methodist minister married us; we say screw them).

[RainMaker]

Are we really throwing up our hands about a "word"? Who cares what the relationship is called so long as same sex and opposite sex couples are provided the same rights and opportunities by the government.

Well you are the one throwing your hands up over a word. It matters to you for some reason.

The First Amendment also provides religious entities rights too and those rights need to be respected along with the rights of gay men and women.

Nothing about gay marriage restricts the rights of religious entities. If you are religious, don't marry someone of the same sex.

[RainMaker]

I almost voted no simply because I think all marriages should be technically classified as Civil Unions and given the same rights & benefits but not called marriages as that has religious connotation. And the more we can keep separate religion & state the better off we are.


Marriage really isn't a religious thing. It was historically used as a way of determining inheritance, maintaining lineage, and what individual rights a person had. Religion didn't enter the picture till much farther down the road.

Marriage as part of religion is a recent tradition. It was originally used for many of the same reasons the government uses it today. A set of right and benefits for individuals. I'm fine with religions want to hold their own ceremonies and do their own things (as long as it's legal). But it really has nothing to do with the government and those groups trying to take ownership of it are revising history.

[DanGarion]

hell, the catholic church doesn't recognize my wife's marriage to the point where they wouldn't let her take communion at her own mother's funeral because a female methodist minister married us; we say screw them).

See this is the issue I have with churches. How the hell do the know, let alone care how she got married? Is there some person there with a clipboard checking off names and telling people what they can and can't do. I went to a catholic church for a couple years in my early twenties and if I had walked up to take communion no one would have known whether or not I was baptized or not in the religion.

[RainMaker]

Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

Health insurance is a pass through cost that the employee ultimately pays for. It is part of their salary. This is no different than telling an employee that they are not allowed to spend their paycheck on soft drinks or fast food. The Church in your example is not paying for anything.

[ISiddiqui]

I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred,

This argument ignores the quite obvious fact that there is a large portion of the population that isn't religious who hold the term marriage sacred as well. Religious folk aren't the only ones who believe certain terms of statuses are sacred. Sometimes are just so powerfully embedded within a culture that they attain a level of sacredness.

Furthermore, there are quite a growing number of the population that has a religious belief, holds the term marriage sacred, and believes that it is Godly to extend that right (or sacrament) to homosexuals.

And finally, in the 1950s there was a large portion of the population that had a religious belief that marriage is sacred and people of different races marrying was not part of that sacredness. We going to make laws to assuage them? I'm glad we finally decided that wasn't an option.

[RainMaker]

I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred, and that to use it as a legal term to define a union they believe is a sin goes against their belief.

And nothing is stopping them from keeping marriage as something sacred in their religion. They are not required to attend a same-sex wedding, or hold them in their places of worship. Something being "sacred" to a segment of the population does not allow for discrimination against the rest. Wine is sacred in certain religions, should it be banned from the rest of us? That's sort of the same theory.

[RedKingGold]

Well you are the one throwing your hands up over a word. It matters to you for some reason.

Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

Nothing about gay marriage restricts the rights of religious entities. If you are religious, don't marry someone of the same sex.

You know that, and I know that but do they know that?

[Izulde]

The 6 No votes don't surprise me in the least. :D

[Marc Vaughan]

Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

I have no problem with that myself .... IF the government then stops giving special treatment to people who are 'married' and require them to also have civil government ceremonies to get their tax breaks etc.

Essentially reducing marriage to a religious only ceremony with no significance outside of that (after all the tax situation etc. which marriage has presently is a lack of separation of church and state etc.).

[RainMaker]

Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

You know that, and I know that but do they know that?

If it's about religion, why are they not upset when Atheists get married at the courthouse? Why is there not an equal push to force them to call their marriage a civil union? I guess I just feel the marriage is a religious term is a copout for them. If this was truly about preserving their tradition, they should be equally appalled if an Atheist is considered married.

Marriage isn't a religious term either. And I don't think a group of people of any belief should be able to come together, take ownership of something that others have used long before, and claim they are the only ones who can have it. To me this is like a religion claiming that wine is part of their religion and that no one should be able to have it unless they are religious.

Ultimately I don't care what it's called as long as everyone is the same in the government's eyes. If they want to call everyone's marriage a civil union, so be it. And religious groups can do what they want in their own private ceremonies. And that doesn't just go for same-sex marriages, it goes for all types of marriage. I feel this isn't much different than demanding that interracial marriages be called civil unions because marriage is a white thing.

[RedKingGold]

If it's about religion, why are they not upset when Atheists get married at the courthouse? Why is there not an equal push to force them to call their marriage a civil union? I guess I just feel the marriage is a religious term is a copout for them. If this was truly about preserving their tradition, they should be equally appalled if an Atheist is considered married.

People using organized religion to support their own personal bias or for nefarious motive is not a new or different idea. Organized religion itself isn't bad, but like guns, people can use it to do that things in the name of bigotry.

Marriage isn't a religious term either. And I don't think a group of people of any belief should be able to come together, take ownership of something that others have used long before, and claim they are the only ones who can have it. To me this is like a religion claiming that wine is part of their religion and that no one should be able to have it unless they are religious.

Ultimately I don't care what it's called as long as everyone is the same in the government's eyes. If they want to call everyone's marriage a civil union, so be it. And religious groups can do what they want in their own private ceremonies. And that doesn't just go for same-sex marriages, it goes for all types of marriage. I feel this isn't much different than demanding that interracial marriages be called civil unions because marriage is a white thing.

FWIW, the government should label all "marriages" as civil unions to get out of this quandary all together. Give all couples the same label and the same benefits. Like it or not, a significant amount of the populous identify marriage as a religious term, so why not skip the debate and start fresh with something new that applies to all couples?

[Blackadar]

FWIW, the government should label all "marriages" as civil unions to get out of this quandary all together. Give all couples the same label and the same benefits. Like it or not, a significant amount of the populous identify marriage as a religious term, so why not skip the debate and start fresh with something new that applies to all couples?

There is no quandary. It seems that you want to adopt the term marriage for only religious ceremonies, but that's not up to you or your religion or the "significant amount of the populous". My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

[OldGiants]

I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.

[digamma]

Ok I will play on your terms:

1. Increased government revenue for additional marriage licenses.

2. Increased sales tax revenue for wedding expenses.

3. Stimulation of local economies (many small businesses) with increased number of weddings.

4. Increased revenue for divorce related court fees.

5. Divorce lawyers have more work, as do marriage counselors, etc.

Just a few benefits off the top of my head. These in addition to the intangible benefits or indirect benefits (increased productivity because of a happier home life).

[Marc Vaughan]

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.
If that is purely the case though why do married couples get treated differently for tax purposes even if they don't have kids? ... the same thing with regards to if one of them was in the military and killed in action, how is their partner treated afterwards etc.

This is about equality and treating people fairly - I don't think they're asking for any more than that.

[Suburban Rhythm]

I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.

What do you get out of an unknown man-woman getting married?
What is the public benefit of allowing straight marriages?

[SteveMax58]

Marriage really isn't a religious thing. It was historically used as a way of determining inheritance, maintaining lineage, and what individual rights a person had. Religion didn't enter the picture till much farther down the road.

Marriage as part of religion is a recent tradition. It was originally used for many of the same reasons the government uses it today. A set of right and benefits for individuals. I'm fine with religions want to hold their own ceremonies and do their own things (as long as it's legal). But it really has nothing to do with the government and those groups trying to take ownership of it are revising history.

Understood on the origination of marriage as a concept but its taken on a completely different definition in US vernacular. Once vernacular has morphed the definition it isn't easy to get back to the original definition & sometimes its just as well to use a new term thats less associative.

No different than a lot of words that are not considered appropriate such as the word retarded being applied to a person that is mentally handicapped.

[ISiddiqui]

Ok I will play on your terms:

1. Increased government revenue for additional marriage licenses.

2. Increased sales tax revenue for wedding expenses.

3. Stimulation of local economies (many small businesses) with increased number of weddings.

4. Increased revenue for divorce related court fees.

5. Divorce lawyers have more work, as do marriage counselors, etc.

Just a few benefits off the top of my head. These in addition to the intangible benefits or indirect benefits (increased productivity because of a happier home life).

And those are just the financial benefits. There are intangible benefits such as the increased happiness of those individuals who now can get married and feel as they are treated equally.

An interesting thing to do is to actually read the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education. It doesn't have much to do with the fact that blacks would get facilities that were less equal than the whites, and more to do with the fact that seperationism made blacks feel like an inferior race and denied them equal protection in the manifestation of their being second class citizens. This is not much different.

[BrianD]

Going back to the polygamy part of this discussion, I seriously wonder if we won't have that legal discussion back on the table in our lifetimes. We are at a point where a family with children almost needs two working parents, but having a parent that stays home with the kids also has benefits. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually go the route of having two working parents and a third staying at home with the kids.

[DanGarion]

There is no quandary. It seems that you want to adopt the term marriage for only religious ceremonies, but that's not up to you or your religion or the "significant amount of the populous". My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

Thank you, this is the same exact point I was attempting to make earlier, but worded much better.

[BrianD]

My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

I'm in the same situation, but my take on the "invalid" comment would be completely different. The State tells me that my marriage is valid, so anyone who tries to tell me their God doesn't consider it valid would only receive pity from me. In fact, I would prefer that people who have this view tell me so. I can put them on the list of people who are too small-minded to be worth my time and move on.

[Lathum]

I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them.

How can you say it isn't truth? They are being denied the same rights as fellow Americans because of their sexual orientation.

Was segrigation not truth? Women voting? Prohibition?

I don't see how you can make a statement like that, makes no sense to me.

[BrianD]

How can you say it isn't truth? They are being denied the same rights as fellow Americans because of their sexual orientation.

Was segrigation not truth? Women voting? Prohibition?

I don't see how you can make a statement like that, makes no sense to me.

I would imagine he didn't mean "truth", he meant "Truth". Religious "Truth" doesn't always agree with the notion of human rights...sadly.

[larrymcg421]

We shouldn't be looking for a public benefit to allow rights. We should look for a public benefit if we want to deny rights. If there is no public benefit, then the right should be allowed.

[larrymcg421]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/47cJSou-6JQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot

[JediKooter]

1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot

What Norv said.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The 6 No votes don't surprise me in the least. :D

Nope.

It seems the more likely someone is to say that the government can't infringe upon their rights, the more likely they are to want to deny other people rights that they freely enjoy.

[DanGarion]

1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot

1. No.
2. Not today.
3. It's not just about procreation.

I do understand the point you are trying to make though.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

3. It's not just about procreation.

because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?

[DanGarion]

because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?

No because having rights to visit your significant other as they lay in a coma after a near death accident and being legally allowed to provide for them and make legal decisions for them isn't allowed without a gov't stamp.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?

What's beautiful is polygamy is invalid with a gov't stamp, but if you don't make it official you can do anything you want with as many people as you want!

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

that's what living will's are for.

and it is for procreation. that's why it was incentivized in the u.s.

[Blackadar]

It seems the more likely someone is to say that the government can't infringe upon their rights, the more likely they are to want to deny other people rights that they freely enjoy.

Bingo :thumbsup:

[DanGarion]

that's what living will's are for.

and it is for procreation. that's why it was incentivized in the u.s.

Not everyone has the time, money, or understanding for a living will. And like I said I understand your point, I realize that procreation makes tax payers. But that isn't the only reason why people get married or want to get married.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

on the back of your license have, 'in result of my incapacitation please consult my baby mama. she's my on the regular ho.'

or some such. problem solved

[Crapshoot]

I'm shocked by this vote to some extent. I expected it to be pro-gay marriage, but 90%+ in favor.

[stevew]

I saw some polling the other day that was suggesting that like 70%ish of the people didn't think Roe v Wade should be overturned.

[ISiddiqui]

Not everyone has the time, money, or understanding for a living will. And like I said I understand your point, I realize that procreation makes tax payers. But that isn't the only reason why people get married or want to get married.

Exactly. Marriage is a one-stop-shop for your spouse to get a whole host of rights, in addition to a committed affirmation of one's love for the other person.

And if one thinks procreation isn't to be encouraged, I would point out the issues a lot of European countries are currently having with their birth rates being lower than their death rates and what that means for the financial health of the country.

[Subby]

Biggest landslide since Stacey Kiebler HoN?

[DanGarion]

Biggest landslide since Stacey Kiebler HoN?

It's currently beating her by 1%.

[RainMaker]

Understood on the origination of marriage as a concept but its taken on a completely different definition in US vernacular. Once vernacular has morphed the definition it isn't easy to get back to the original definition & sometimes its just as well to use a new term thats less associative.

No different than a lot of words that are not considered appropriate such as the word retarded being applied to a person that is mentally handicapped.

It's not illegal to use the word retarded though. If the definition of a word wants to change over time, that's fine, but it shouldn't be illegal to use for a segment of the population. Like I said earlier, I don't care what we call it for everyone, just as long as it's the same.

[RainMaker]

I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.

I'm white, I don't see why blacks should be able to use children as a deduction on their income tax forms. I mean it doesn't do anything for me since I'm white.

I'm also a male, there is nothing in it for me if women are allowed to vote. I've heard Asians make bad drivers so not sure how it benefits me to allow them to obtain a drivers license.

Civil rights aren't usually a "how does it benefit me?" proposition. If you're arguing that all marriage benefits are a waste and shouldn't be given, I understand. But saying that if things don't benefit me they shouldn't be given to others is no different than the examples I gave.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

And if one thinks procreation isn't to be encouraged, I would point out the issues a lot of European countries are currently having with their birth rates being lower than their death rates and what that means for the financial health of the country.
we should ship over a contingent of girls from my hs class because they're shitting out kids by the bushel

[molson]

So there's the religious argument against gay marriage, but what was the recent Democratic party opposition to it all about? It wasn't all that long ago that a majority of Democratic legislators opposed gay marriage - Dems in both houses voted 2-1 in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Was the Dem opposition religious-based as well? Dems weren't citing religion for policy stances in any other context that recently, as far as I remember. So what was the basis of their argument against gay marriage? And why has that presumably more moderate argument against gay marriage (whatever it was) entirely disappeared, leaving us with pretty much only religious opposition?

[Kodos]

Probably Democrats didn't want to give Republicans something to drive conservative turnout in elections.

[Subby]

So there's the religious argument against gay marriage, but what was the recent Democratic party opposition to it all about? It wasn't all that long ago that a majority of Democratic legislators opposed gay marriage - Dems in both houses voted 2-1 in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Was the Dem opposition religious-based as well? Dems weren't citing religion for policy stances in any other context that recently, as far as I remember. So what was the basis of their argument against gay marriage? And why has that presumably more moderate argument against gay marriage (whatever it was) entirely disappeared, leaving us with pretty much only religious opposition?
17 years is an eternity. People are afraid of sudden change. Incremental change is what this country does best.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Marriage is gay.

[molson]

17 years is an eternity. People are afraid of sudden change. Incremental change is what this country does best.

I get that, but I'm just curious what Obama, Gore, Clinton, Biden, etc would say in 1996 (or in some cases, much later), regarding why they oppose gay marriage? I don't think they would have said, "it's against god's law." What was the more moderate, liberal-friendly opposition to gay marriage that has been obliterated to the point we don't even remember what it was? The gay rights movement has done a excellent job making it them v. religion (which is always a battle the "them" is going to win eventually), but obviously there was more to it than that in the not-so-distant past. (Edit: The only thing I specifically remember was from one of the debates, Gore said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I always have believed that.") I guess it was just as simple as that, a cultural defense of the term marriage with maybe the slight but unspoken nod to religion?

[BrianD]

So there's the religious argument against gay marriage, but what was the recent Democratic party opposition to it all about? It wasn't all that long ago that a majority of Democratic legislators opposed gay marriage - Dems in both houses voted 2-1 in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Was the Dem opposition religious-based as well? Dems weren't citing religion for policy stances in any other context that recently, as far as I remember. So what was the basis of their argument against gay marriage? And why has that presumably more moderate argument against gay marriage (whatever it was) entirely disappeared, leaving us with pretty much only religious opposition?

I think the biggest argument was either religion of the Democrats, or the prevailing religion of the electorate. Those that didn't oppose gay marriage stayed pretty quiet until popular opinion shifted.

[mckerney]

Probably Democrats didn't want to give Republicans something to drive conservative turnout in elections.

It was probably about winning elections. Even in 2004 it was by far the popular opinion in the country that same sex marriage should be illegal. In the 2004 elections there were 11 states that put it up on the ballot (including Ohio in an effort to drive social conservatives to the polls there) and all of them passed, with 9 getting 60% or more of the vote.

[ISiddiqui]

I get that, but I'm just curious what Obama, Gore, Clinton, Biden, etc would say in 1996 (or in some cases, much later), regarding why they oppose gay marriage? I don't think they would have said, "it's against god's law." What was the more moderate, liberal-friendly opposition to gay marriage that has been obliterated to the point we don't even remember what it was? The gay rights movement has done a excellent job making it them v. religion (which is always a battle the "them" is going to win eventually), but obviously there was more to it than that in the not-so-distant past. (Edit: The only thing I specifically remember was from one of the debates, Gore said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I always have believed that.") I guess it was just as simple as that, a cultural defense of the term marriage with maybe the slight but unspoken nod to religion?

I think for most Democrats, they were for gay equal rights, but were still a bit squeamish on marriage equality. I think its been because of the work of gay rights folk that a lot of those Democratic leaders realized that their past views didn't really make any sense and so they changed.

[mckerney]

I think for most Democrats, they were for gay equal rights, but were still a bit squeamish on marriage equality. I think its been because of the work of gay rights folk that a lot of those Democratic leaders realized that their past views didn't really make any sense and so they changed.

It's probably part this and part fear of losing elections if they said they supported legalizing same sex marriage. In theory sure it might seem like it was best to say they supported it, but since legalizing same sex marriage isn't something they'd realistically be able to do anyway it was probably better to play it safe and have a better chance at being elected.

[Lathum]

I would love to hear some of the people against it actually provide reason why. I know we have seen a few responses but not many.

[JediKooter]

I would love to hear some of the people against it actually provide reason why. I know we have seen a few responses but not many.

Don't hold your breath.

[RainMaker]

I get that, but I'm just curious what Obama, Gore, Clinton, Biden, etc would say in 1996 (or in some cases, much later), regarding why they oppose gay marriage? I don't think they would have said, "it's against god's law." What was the more moderate, liberal-friendly opposition to gay marriage that has been obliterated to the point we don't even remember what it was? The gay rights movement has done a excellent job making it them v. religion (which is always a battle the "them" is going to win eventually), but obviously there was more to it than that in the not-so-distant past. (Edit: The only thing I specifically remember was from one of the debates, Gore said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I always have believed that.") I guess it was just as simple as that, a cultural defense of the term marriage with maybe the slight but unspoken nod to religion?

They mainly danced around it. Some like Clinton used the "State's should determine on their own" mantra. Seems they just looked at the polls and tried to come up with reasons for opposing it that was vague and didn't look like bigotry. Here is Clinton's statement on DOMA for an idea.

President Clinton's statement on DOMA (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html)

[mckerney]

Don't hold your breath.

I always thought this summed it up pretty well (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xJWbszxHANE#t=66s).

[Sun Tzu]

Darling, will you give me the ultimate honor of taking my hand in civil unionage?

[revrew]

I would love to hear some of the people against it actually provide reason why. I know we have seen a few responses but not many.

Actually, my reasons why are pretty simple.

Homosexuality is ethically wrong. The government should not be in the business of condoning or sanctioning that which is ethically wrong. End of story.

Now, you may disagree with my first statement, in which case, you disagree with my conclusion. I get that. I figure we can still be friends.

[DaddyTorgo]

Actually, my reasons why are pretty simple.

Homosexuality is ethically wrong. The government should not be in the business of condoning or sanctioning that which is ethically wrong. End of story.

Now, you may disagree with my first statement, in which case, you disagree with my conclusion. I get that. I figure we can still be friends.

Government should not be in the business of enforcing the ethical beliefs of one group when they infringe upon the human rights of the individual (presuming you still believe that homosexuals, although ethically wrong, are human beings?).

[Blackadar]

Actually, my reasons why are pretty simple.

Homosexuality is ethically wrong. The government should not be in the business of condoning or sanctioning that which is ethically wrong. End of story.

Now, you may disagree with my first statement, in which case, you disagree with my conclusion. I get that. I figure we can still be friends.

Not withstanding the horrific consequences of asking the Government to enforce ethical beliefs that infringe upon the rights of consenting individuals, are we to assume you draw your first statement from the Bible? If not, what led you to believe that homosexuality is ethically wrong?

[DaddyTorgo]

Eating anything other than spaghetti is ethically wrong*. That's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me in his book.

*This statement is of equal validity to rev's. Therefore rev is ethically wrong for not eating spaghetti 100% of the time. So therefore the government should not be condoning or sanctioning people who eat anything other than spaghetti. We should force-feed people spaghetti. :p

OR

Both of these statements are based upon an equal amount of facts (none), and should not be enforced by the government.

You choose rev.

No...seriously...I want you to choose.

[Blackadar]

Eating anything other than spaghetti is ethically wrong. That's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me in his book.

--This statement is of equal validity to rev's. Therefore rev is ethically wrong for not eating spaghetti 100% of the time. :p

OR

They're both equally BS.

DT, don't get me wrong - I agree with your logic. But I'd like to hear his answer on how he determined homosexuality is ethically wrong.

[DaddyTorgo]

DT, don't get me wrong - I agree with your logic. But I'd like to hear his answer on how he determined homosexuality is ethically wrong.

You know what he'll say though. Same thing he's said before.

And I just got off a red-eye from the West Coast after being tired out playing with my nieces for a week, I'm in no mood to put up with BS. In fact, I'm cutting a swathe of destruction across all sorts of BS today and telling it like it is IRL and here.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I figure we can still be friends.

We can, but I'm not going to kiss you or anything like that. We're not that kind of friends.

Here's a quick question to ponder when it comes to gays & morality/ethics. What's worse, to be true to what they feel and honest with themselves... or to go out and live a lie, marry someone of the opposite sex just because it's the proper thing to do?

[BillJasper]

We can, but I'm not going to kiss you or anything like that. We're not that kind of friends.

Here's a quick question to ponder when it comes to gays & morality/ethics. What's worse, to be true to what they feel and honest with themselves... or to go out and live a lie, marry someone of the opposite sex just because it's the proper thing to do?

The obvious answer is that they should stay in the closet and die lonely, miserable individuals.

[revrew]

Yes, of course I get my standard of ethics from the Bible.

And I understand that many on this board and in the world reject the Bible as a standard of ethics. I get it. I understand and expect that they will therefore seek different rules for society, vote differently on various issues, and so forth. I also expect that, in time, if it's not already here, my views on ethics will be in the minority, and society and laws in a (somewhat) democratic society will necessarily change to reflect that.

However, there are a pair of fundamental flaws with some of your (collectively) more flippant responses.

First, the government is always in the business of enforcing ethical beliefs. Every law on our books is a reflection of a moral evaluation - is personal property a fundamental right? If so, our laws will be more capitalist in nature. If not, our laws will tend toward communism. Even our taxes are a moral statement that a portion of our personal property is better spent for collective purposes than individual gain. The very existence of a tax is a repudiation of anarchist ethics (and some of Ayn Rand's, but that's a tangent).

So the only real question is whose ethics will be enforced by the sword of government (upon consenting adults), and what basis will be used for determining ethics.

The second flaw is the question of what determines "human rights." Where do our rights come from? Who determines what is and isn't a "right"? (How is marriage for ANYONE, hetero or homosexual a right? Where's the basis for that?)

America's Founding Fathers, in the Dec of Independence, explicitly stated that nature and nature's God were the source of these rights and that we were "endowed by our Creator" with these rights.

Yet you (per my 2nd paragraph above) reject that Creator. Where, then, do rights come from?

I fear your answer would be little more than popular opinion. Yikes. That's scary. Popular opinion in Nazi Germany or the segregationist South was little protection of human rights. Where then, do you get the idea that homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) have a "right" to marry?

[BillJasper]

Where then, do you get the idea that homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) have a "right" to marry?

Its not about the right to marry, it's about the rights of two adults to enter into a legally binding contract.

[molson]

Yes, of course I get my standard of ethics from the Bible.


Do you rely on Leviticus for your views on homosexuality? If so, do you follow the other old Jewish law from Leviticus? Or is it the reference in Paul's letter to the Romans? There's a few different interpretations of the latter, it's certainly not very clear or prominent. It's just odd to me that homosexuality is such a big "thing" for so many Christians based on that one reference. It seems to be good old fashion heterosexual sin is dealt with MUCH more prominently in the bible.

I do agree with everything else you said about law just being codified ethics. Religion is just one place to draw ethics from, I don't see it as any more or less valid than anyplace anyone else gets their ethics from, whether it be from their parents, experiences, books they read, whatever.

[DanGarion]

Actually, my reasons why are pretty simple.

Homosexuality is ethically wrong. The government should not be in the business of condoning or sanctioning that which is ethically wrong. End of story.

Now, you may disagree with my first statement, in which case, you disagree with my conclusion. I get that. I figure we can still be friends.

So is premarital sex. Hell, even sex for anything other than procreation...

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The obvious answer is that they should stay in the closet and die lonely, miserable individuals.

True. And marry our sisters while longing for the touch of another man.

[RainMaker]

Yes, of course I get my standard of ethics from the Bible.

That's a fair answer. But shouldn't your beliefs on this also carry over to other things the Bible finds ethically wrong? Premarital sex should be illegal, am I correct? Same for divorce?

There are a lot of things the Bible finds ethically wrong. Tattoos, wearing polyester, or eating a lobster for dinner. If you're consistent in your beliefs, we shouldn't be condoning any of these things.

[molson]

Its not about the right to marry, it's about the rights of two adults to enter into a legally binding contract.

To be fair, I think it's been established that people want gay "marriage", not just gay civil unions/contracts. That identification is important to people. I'm sure you could get a lot more conservative Christians on board if all anybody wanted was binding contracts with no reference to marriage.

[AENeuman]

Eating anything other than spaghetti is ethically wrong*. That's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me in his book.

*This statement is of equal validity to rev's. Therefore rev is ethically wrong for not eating spaghetti 100% of the time. So therefore the government should not be condoning or sanctioning people who eat anything other than spaghetti. We should force-feed people spaghetti. :p

OR

Both of these statements are based upon an equal amount of facts (none), and should not be enforced by the government.

You choose rev.

No...seriously...I want you to choose.

From what I gather from your example you are saying that any claim of "ethical wrongness" is merely a relative statement. That the government should not make any act illegal because it is merely viewed as unethical by some percentage of the population? There seems to be too many of these laws now (smoking, prostitution, gambling, hunting, etc) to dismiss this reasoning.

I think a better tack would be to ask: because this was framed as an ethical issue and not a moral one, what evidence would you accept that would change your mind?

[RainMaker]

So is premarital sex. Hell, even sex for anything other than procreation...

Heck, God explicitly talks about how pissed off he gets for using the pull out technique in the Bible.

[DanGarion]

Honestly it seems like most people against gay marriage are really just against the gay sex part.

[DanGarion]

Heck, God explicitly talks about how pissed off he gets for using the pull out technique in the Bible.

Don't spill my seed, son! No masturbation for you!

[BillJasper]

To be fair, I think it's been established that people want gay "marriage", not just gay civil unions/contracts. That identification is important to people. I'm sure you could get a lot more conservative Christians on board if all anybody wanted was binding contracts with no reference to marriage.

They want the same rights that every heterosexual couple receive under the law. It's called marriage so gay people want marriage as recognized by the state. No one is forcing religious groups to recognize it just to live with the fact that hetero and homosexual couples are the same under the law.

It's really a waste of our country's time to be going on and on about something that is so simple.

[revrew]

That's a fair answer. But shouldn't your beliefs on this also carry over to other things the Bible finds ethically wrong? Premarital sex should be illegal, am I correct? Same for divorce?

There are a lot of things the Bible finds ethically wrong. Tattoos, wearing polyester, or eating a lobster for dinner. If you're consistent in your beliefs, we shouldn't be condoning any of these things.

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating homosexuality be made illegal. Simply that extending the benefits of marriage to it shouldn't become legal.

[molson]

They want the same rights that every heterosexual couple receive under the law. It's called marriage so gay people want marriage as recognized by the state. No one is forcing religious groups to recognize it just to live with the fact that hetero and homosexual couples are the same under the law.

It's really a waste of our country's time to be going on and on about something that is so simple.

Right, it's more than just a "contract", that's my point.

[BillJasper]

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating homosexuality be made illegal. Simply that extending the benefits of marriage to it shouldn't become legal.

Why? If something is wrong its wrong.

[revrew]

So is premarital sex. Hell, even sex for anything other than procreation...

Yes. So I likewise wouldn't support government tax breaks for cohabitation, wouldn't support unique privileges given to practicers of adultery or bestiality, wouldn't support tax credits for frequent masturbation.

Really, I'm not so ridiculous as so many of you attempt to make me.

[molson]

Heck, God explicitly talks about how pissed off he gets for using the pull out technique in the Bible.

Well, in the old testament. Plenty of Christians believe that the Old Jewish law went away with Jesus came along. That's why they don't abide by the law of Leviticus, it has no application to them. Even most Christians don't see the bible isn't this big coherent book of laws to follow. It was written by humans over a huge period of time. If someone were to just follow the teachings of Jesus they wouldn't necessarily resemble a modern American "conservative christian", they'd more resemble a hippie.

[BillJasper]

Right, it's more than just a "contract", that's my point.

But as far as the state is concerned, that is all it should be. A contract between two consenting adults.

[BillJasper]

Well, in the old testament. Plenty of Christians believe that the Old Jewish law went away with Jesus came along. That's why they don't abide by the law of Leviticus, it has no application to them. Even most Christians don't see the bible isn't this big coherent book of laws to follow. It was written by humans over a huge period of time.

So they pick-and-choose what they want to follow and then try to make life hard for people who don't see things the same way as they do...

[JediKooter]

I always thought this summed it up pretty well (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xJWbszxHANE#t=66s).

Haha! Yes it did.

[revrew]

Why? If something is wrong its wrong.

Well, then we move beyond ethics to get into the question of what is the proper role of government. Is it the proper role of government to make every sin a crime punishable by law?

Should a child who fibs to mom to get out of a grounding be remitted to juvenile hall? Should a man who lusts after a woman serve jail time? Should a woman who gossips about her neighbor have her tongue cut out?

No, I don't think it's the government's job to make punishable all unethical actions.

[molson]

But as far as the state is concerned, that is all it should be. A contract between two consenting adults.

Whatever you think it "should be", it IS more currently. It IS about the "right to marry", it's not just about contracts. That's the whole problem with the civil unions.

[molson]

So they pick-and-choose what they want to follow and then try to make life hard for people who don't see things the same way as they do...

Depends on who you mean by "they". Not all Christians or believers or people who draw any kind of inspiration from the bible are the same. And the "pick and choose" complaint I think shows a misunderstanding of the bible generally. It's not one big book "written by god". Edit: It's OK for someone to be inspired by, or even believe in, the teachings of Jesus and also not follow the old Jewish law of Leviticus. That doesn't make them a hypocrite.

[BillJasper]

Well, then we move beyond ethics to get into the question of what is the proper role of government. Is it the proper role of government to make every sin a crime punishable by law?

Should a child who fibs to mom to get out of a grounding be remitted to juvenile hall? Should a man who lusts after a woman serve jail time? Should a woman who gossips about her neighbor have her tongue cut out?

No, I don't think it's the government's job to make punishable all unethical actions.

So why single out marriage?

[BillJasper]

Depends on who you mean by "they". Not all Christians or believers or people who draw any kind of inspiration from the bible are the same. And the "pick and choose" complaint I think shows a misunderstanding of the bible generally. It's not one big book "written by god".

But you have groups of people who use it as the basis to deny rights to other groups of people.

[RainMaker]

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating homosexuality be made illegal. Simply that extending the benefits of marriage to it shouldn't become legal.

But you're advocating gay marriage be illegal. I guess I don't get why your stance on banning things that are ethically wrong doesn't carry over to other things that are ethically wrong according to the Bible. I mean if gay marriage is illegal as you say it should be, why not masturbation, divorce, and premarital sex? Why not homosexuality? You've already said it's ethically wrong.

It just feels like you're cherry picking one little thing from the Bible and ignoring the rest.

[molson]

But you have groups of people who use it as the basis to deny rights to other groups of people.

Rights are just codification of ethics too. You, me, and everyone else picks and chooses what to base their ethics on and to what extent to codify them in the law.

[RainMaker]

No, I don't think it's the government's job to make punishable all unethical actions.

So which ones are punishable? You are the one that made the claim that government should not be condoning or sanctioning things that are ethically wrong. This directly contradicts your earlier statement.

[RainMaker]

That doesn't make them a hypocrite.

If you're argument is "the Bible says so", it absolutely makes you a hypocrite.

[BillJasper]

Rights are just codification of ethics too. You, me, and everyone else picks and chooses what to base their ethics on and to what extent to codify them in the law.

But if the homosexual lifestyle is 'unethical', why try to deny only the logical endpoint of those relationships? Why not continue to try and deny these folks the right to practice the lifestyle?

Seems to be ethically wrong to allow such an immoral practice to go on unchallenged...

[molson]

If you're argument is "the Bible says so", it absolutely makes you a hypocrite.

It depends on what part of the bible your belief is based on, that's why I asked him that. If you're basing it on Leviticus but don't follow any other old Jewish law other than that one thing, that's pretty suspect. But no, it's not hypocritical to follow Christianity and not also old Jewish law. That's like saying if have any Christian beliefs you're a hypocrite unless you also follow the rules of Hinduism and Buddhism. It's not all the same thing. It's literally two different religions (among which, there are many sub-religions).

[BillJasper]

Last I checked, the Old Testament and New Testament are all in one giant book called 'The Bible'.

[revrew]

So why single out marriage?

Fundamental misunderstanding about marriage laws here. You aren't punished under law for not marrying.

Government grants the marriage status to include certain legal privileges and tax breaks, presumably because the government believes it is in its best interest to sanction or legally affirm it as an institution (whether it should do that at all is a related debate, but not one I care to get into).

It's not just a matter of legal or illegal, it's a matter of punishably illegal or not and sanctioned legal or not sanctioned at all. Punishment and sanctioning are two different things.

As for the discussion about contracts, I agree people should be able to enter contracts, but marriage is more than a contract - again the status confers certain privileges and benefits. If two or more homosexuals want to enter legal contracts, financial contracts, power of attorney, want the ability to visit one another in the hospital (that's a bad one that needs correction), I support that. Some parts of the civil union initiatives are well-motivated.

But by creating the "married" status, the government has sanctioned and approved the man-woman-child unit as a positive institution the government is willing to commend and financially support (yes, I know not all marrieds have children - don't go there). Whether the government should do that or not, I don't support the same sanctioning of homosexual relationships.

[molson]

But if the homosexual lifestyle is 'unethical', why try to deny only the logical endpoint of those relationships? Why not continue to try and deny these folks the right to practice the lifestyle?

Seems to be ethically wrong to allow such an immoral practice to go on unchallenged...

I don't know, I don't think either is unethical, so I could only speculate. Maybe it has something to do with the government's recognizing of it, the "stamp of approval."

[DanGarion]

But by creating the "married" status, the government has sanctioned and approved the man-woman-child unit as a positive institution the government is willing to commend and financially support (yes, I know not all marrieds have children - don't go there). Whether the government should do that or not, I don't support the same sanctioning of homosexual relationships.

But what does that have to do with religion?

[BillJasper]

But by creating the "married" status, the government has sanctioned and approved the man-woman-child unit as a positive institution the government is willing to commend and financially support (yes, I know not all marrieds have children - don't go there). Whether the government should do that or not, I don't support the same sanctioning of homosexual relationships.

But why should the government be sanctioning only a man-woman union, when no data exists that says a man-man/woman-woman union somehow erodes its status as a positive institution?

[RainMaker]

(yes, I know not all marrieds have children - don't go there).

Please don't bring up the point that makes my argument look bad.

[molson]

Last I checked, the Old Testament and New Testament are all in one giant book called 'The Bible'.

But for Christians, Christianity replaced the old Jewish law. That was kind of the point. That's why Christians can eat pork. There is no one religion that the bible definitively speaks for. Edit: I mean, you can't understate what a game changer Christianity was. People can debate what a sin and what isn't based on this or that text, and what the punishment should be, but the new testament swept most of that away. Jesus was more into, "we're all sinners, so don't be an asshole and think you're better than some other sinner." He certainly wasn't preaching against homosexuality and gay marriage.

[revrew]

If you're argument is "the Bible says so", it absolutely makes you a hypocrite.

If you think an in-depth discussion of understanding how a Christian handles Old Testament law is a worthy discussion, perhaps we should move that to another thread. It would thread-jack this one pretty badly.

Suffice it to say that the claim, "A Christian condemns homosexuality but he eats lobster! He doesn't stone adulterers. It's all nonsense," is in itself nonsense. There are certain orthodox rules of scriptural interpretation and theology that resolve these issues pretty simply, and I'm perfectly comfortable defending the difference between shelfish and pork on one hand and idolatry and sexual immorality on the other.

As for the hypocrisy charge, I believe we all profess certain ethics, but fail to live up to them, thus making us all hypocrites. I do, however, endeavor to improve in areas where my hypocrisy is legitimately pointed out.

[ISiddiqui]

But for Christians, Christianity replaced the old Jewish law. That was kind of the point. That's why Christians can eat pork. There is no one religion that the bible definitively speaks for.

'Tis true. A lot of Christians believe the Bible is a progression in the understanding of God and the Law was superceeded by the perfect revelation of God in the form of Jesus the Christ and His message of Grace (ie, the Law was not a completely understanding of the nature of God - there is also the argument that the Law was put in place because the people were not ready yet for the teaching of Grace).

[revrew]

But why should the government be sanctioning only a man-woman union, when no data exists that says a man-man/woman-woman union somehow erodes its status as a positive institution?

Be careful about making fact claims that you haven't actually researched.

[DaddyTorgo]

Be careful about making fact claims that you haven't actually researched.

The irony of you pointing this out to others when your claims have NO basis in fact surely isn't lost on you, is it?

[JPhillips]

Just to add a little spice...

Looks like the Boy Scouts are going to allow individual chapters to determine whether gays can be members/masters.

[molson]

Just to add a little spice...

Looks like the Boy Scouts are going to allow individual chapters to determine whether gays can be members/masters.

This one usually falls into the "gay is not the same thing as pedophile" bucket of logic, but there's another issue with this that gets overshadowed by that. Isn't sending a 16-year old boy, who may very well be gay, on a camping trip with a 24 year old gay man kind of like sending a 16-year old girl on a camping trip with a 24 year old straight man? I don't think most parents would be OK with the latter, so is it homophobic not to be OK with the former? Or is different because 16-year old girls are more attractive to adult straight males with questionable morals than 16-year old boys are to adult gay males with questionable morals?

[JPhillips]

When I was a scout there was never a case of one master and one scout camping together.

[DaddyTorgo]

This one usually falls into the "gay is not the same thing as pedophile" bucket of logic, but there's another issue with this that gets overshadowed by that. Isn't sending a 16-year old boy, who may very well be gay, on a camping trip with a 24 year old gay man kind of like sending a 16-year old girl on a camping trip with a 24 year old straight man? I don't think most parents would be OK with the latter, so is it homophobic not to be OK with the former? Or is different because 16-year old girls are more attractive to adult straight males with questionable morals than 16-year old boys are to adult gay males with questionable morals?

It doesn't take a camping trip though. All it takes is like...driving the babysitter home...or...allowing a straight man to coach a HS girls sports team...or...any number of other things.

Or for that matter a gay person to do any of those.

Homosexuality is not an "on switch" for predatory behavior. Sexual predators are sexual predators, regardless of orientation.

[BillJasper]

Be careful about making fact claims that you haven't actually researched.

There is no way gay marriage can be anymore damaging to the institution than the fifty percent divorce rate among hetero couples.

[molson]

When I was a scout there was never a case of one master and one scout camping together.

True, but they might end up in the same tent in smaller numbers. If it was a co-ed trip the living arrangements would certainly be segregated. Nobody would want their 16-year old daughter bunking with the 22-year old male guide.

[revrew]

The irony of you pointing this out to others when your claims have NO basis in fact surely isn't lost on you, is it?

Whether or not Christianity has any basis in fact is another topic for another thread. I would argue it at least has the person of Jesus of Nazareth and is in fact a world religion and so forth. And I have not made wild claims about it without researching it thoroughly.

But the previous poster made an assertion that nothing exists where I believe it does exist and I suspect he hasn't done the research. I don't, however, have the data on hand, so I can't specifically refute the poster.

As for irony, I can't help but make this little dig: The irony of all this righteous indignation in defense of the unrighteous, from (many) people who even reject the notion of righteousness; the moral pronouncements coming from (many) people who reject that which is moral (yes, now I'm sounding like a preacher. Stop that) is equally ironic.

It really comes down to this, going way back to where I began. Many of you and I just have a radically different perception of what is and isn't ethical. I just happen to hold to the ethics common to one of the world's largest religions and the faith that heavily influenced the founding of the country I live in. Why does this surprise and infuriate (many of) you so much? Welcome to America.

[DaddyTorgo]

There is no way gay marriage can be anymore damaging to the institution than the fifty percent divorce rate among hetero couples.

Seperation rates for same-sex couples are less than those of hetero couples I believe, right?

At least I know that the states that have legalized gay marriage have lower overall divorce rates then the states that haven't.

Food for thought rev - gay marriage might even make your marriage STRONGER!!! ZOMG!!!!

[revrew]

There is no way gay marriage can be anymore damaging to the institution than the fifty percent divorce rate among hetero couples.

Oh, I agree with that completely. I think the "no-fault" divorce laws have been - to use some religious language for fun - an "abomination," and furthermore, the lack of marital fidelity has become a social nightmare. Marriage in this country is in a shambles.

[BillJasper]

It really comes down to this, going way back to where I began. Many of you and I just have a radically different perception of what is and isn't ethical. I just happen to hold to the ethics common to one of the world's largest religions and the faith that heavily influenced the founding of the country I live in. Why does this surprise and infuriate (many of) you so much? Welcome to America.

Probably the "all men are created equal" part. All equal unless they're black, gay or non-Christian.

[JPhillips]

True, but they might end up in the same tent in smaller numbers. If it was a co-ed trip the living arrangements would certainly be segregated. Nobody would want their 16-year old daughter bunking with the 22-year old male guide.

I never bunked with adults. We were always in tents with other scouts.

Which also caused problems. The alcohol usage in our scout troop was sky high.

[JPhillips]

I just happen to hold to the ethics common to one of the world's largest religions

http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2011/08/picture-7/large.png

Welcome to America.

[molson]

Homosexuality is not an "on switch" for predatory behavior. Sexual predators are sexual predators, regardless of orientation.

Sure, the concern isn't because they're gay, it's because they're men, which is a much bigger risk factor than anything else for criminal sexual behavior (notwithstanding the popular FOFC thread highlighting the much rarer female molester). And I'm not talking about pedophiles here, I'm talking about the younger guy who's looking to bang someone within in the vicinity of his age, but below the age of consent. We're wary of young men targeting older teen girls in that way, and I think there's various societal and cultural ways we limit that risk, so why wouldn't we be wary of young gay men targeting older gay teen boys in the same way? Things like camping trips is where I can see those issues come up.

[Blackadar]

Yes, of course I get my standard of ethics from the Bible.

And I understand that many on this board and in the world reject the Bible as a standard of ethics. I get it. I understand and expect that they will therefore seek different rules for society, vote differently on various issues, and so forth. I also expect that, in time, if it's not already here, my views on ethics will be in the minority, and society and laws in a (somewhat) democratic society will necessarily change to reflect that.

However, there are a pair of fundamental flaws with some of your (collectively) more flippant responses.

First, the government is always in the business of enforcing ethical beliefs. Every law on our books is a reflection of a moral evaluation - is personal property a fundamental right? If so, our laws will be more capitalist in nature. If not, our laws will tend toward communism. Even our taxes are a moral statement that a portion of our personal property is better spent for collective purposes than individual gain. The very existence of a tax is a repudiation of anarchist ethics (and some of Ayn Rand's, but that's a tangent).

So the only real question is whose ethics will be enforced by the sword of government (upon consenting adults), and what basis will be used for determining ethics.

The second flaw is the question of what determines "human rights." Where do our rights come from? Who determines what is and isn't a "right"? (How is marriage for ANYONE, hetero or homosexual a right? Where's the basis for that?)

America's Founding Fathers, in the Dec of Independence, explicitly stated that nature and nature's God were the source of these rights and that we were "endowed by our Creator" with these rights.

Yet you (per my 2nd paragraph above) reject that Creator. Where, then, do rights come from?

I fear your answer would be little more than popular opinion. Yikes. That's scary. Popular opinion in Nazi Germany or the segregationist South was little protection of human rights. Where then, do you get the idea that homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) have a "right" to marry?

Godwin'd yourself there.

But let me engage you on your ground. How do you feel about interracial marriages (Deuteronomy 7:3 - “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,”) or marriages between believers and nonbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”)? These are very clear instances of the Bible telling people not to do something. So do you accept that there should be not interracial marriages or marriages between people of different (or no) faiths? Or are you picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe?


Taking it a bit off your ground, why should we, a country with no official religion (the Constitution doesn't even have the word God in it), take the word of your God and apply it to everyone? Why should that apply to everyone rather than just be your own internal moral code?

Because you are wrong about not being married is not a penalty. When we're talking about health insurance, visitation rights, property inheritance, child-rearing and a whole host of other topics, there most certainly is a penalty to those who are not married.

[ISiddiqui]

Godwin'd yourself there.

But let me engage you on your ground. How do you feel about interracial marriages (Deuteronomy 7:3 - “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,”) or marriages between believers and nonbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”)? These are very clear instances of the Bible telling people not to do something. So do you accept that there should be not interracial marriages or marriages between people of different (or no) faiths? Or are you picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe?

To be fair, Deuteronomy 7:3's admonition is the same as 2 Corinthians 6:14 - it's because those other tribes will lead sons & daughters of Isreal to following other gods.

Slight nitpick.

[Blackadar]

To be fair, Deuteronomy 7:3's admonition is the same as 2 Corinthians 6:14 - it's because those other tribes will lead sons & daughters of Isreal to following other gods.

Slight nitpick.

It all depends on the interpretation, doesn't it? D 7:3 was used historically to justify the prevention of interracial marriages.

[ISiddiqui]

People enjoy cherry picking out verses.

If you look at the paragraph it is in (esp 7:4), you'll see the intent.

[revrew]

Blackadar, your argument is garbage. It's a theological straw man/circular argument that begins with the assumption Christians cherry pick, then drums up a host of bad theology to prove that Christians cherry pick.

Sound theology and a few basic rules of Scriptural interpretation can blow all these out of the water with ease. But that's another thread. You want to start it, we can discuss it there.

[larrymcg421]

Sure, the concern isn't because they're gay, it's because they're men, which is a much bigger risk factor than anything else for criminal sexual behavior (notwithstanding the popular FOFC thread highlighting the much rarer female molester). And I'm not talking about pedophiles here, I'm talking about the younger guy who's looking to bang someone within in the vicinity of his age, but below the age of consent. We're wary of young men targeting older teen girls in that way, and I think there's various societal and cultural ways we limit that risk, so why wouldn't we be wary of young gay men targeting older gay teen boys in the same way? Things like camping trips is where I can see those issues come up.

The danger scenario you envision still exists today. There's nothing stopping a pedophile from doing something, whether the Boy Scouts allow gays or not. Most pedophiles do not identify as gay and social scientists have largely concluded that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation from homosexuality. If I had a son in the Boy Scouts, I wouldn't trust him any more with a straight scoutmaster than I would a gay one.

[larrymcg421]

Here's what my church has to say:

Scripture, Tradition and Reason - we believe we should make our decisions about our spiritual life based on reconciling what the Bible says, what the Church has said over the years, and what our reason says today. Taking all of these into account we often agree to disagree and still concur and continue to seek God's message. It's not always the easiest path, but we think it's one of the positive ways to express our love and share Jesus' teachings.

[SackAttack]

Oh, I agree with that completely. I think the "no-fault" divorce laws have been - to use some religious language for fun - an "abomination," and furthermore, the lack of marital fidelity has become a social nightmare. Marriage in this country is in a shambles.

And, yet, the focus by the religious right is on preventing gays from marrying and blaming them for the woes besetting the institution of marriage instead of addressing the issues within their own community.

Something about removing the log in your own eye before the mote in your neighbor's, I believe?

[revrew]

Welcome to America.

What's your point, besides trying to be snotty?

I've already admitted that my ethical position is on its way toward being the minority in America, if it isn't there already, and of course, Christianity is a minority in the world as a whole. That doesn't mean it isn't one of the world's major faiths - one of the largest 2 or 3, if I'm not mistaken. Even if it's only top 10, we're talking millions and millions of people. Regardless, it's a significant faith in America, so I ask the question again, why are people surprised and darn near hysterical when one of the nation's most prominent viewpoints is expressed?

Really. (Many of) you do your side in this argument a disservice. (And before you say it, yes I KNOW many on my side do, too. In fact, I blame the decline of Christianity in the U.S. solely on the stupidity of the people who practice it).

[Matthean]

It all depends on the interpretation, doesn't it? D 7:3 was used historically to justify the prevention of interracial marriages.

Way too much of a jump to come to that conclusion. If read in context, which to be honest far too many people don't do, the intention of the verse is laid out rather plainly.

[revrew]

And, yet, the focus by the religious right is on preventing gays from marrying and blaming them for the woes besetting the institution of marriage instead of addressing the issues within their own community.

Something about removing the log in your own eye before the mote in your neighbor's, I believe?

Log in the eye a good point, but your characterization of "the religious right" is an overgeneralization. Besides, the "focus" comes because we're also having a public, political debate about changing laws.

And honestly, if there was a major movement afoot in the church in America to rescue heterosexual marriage from the ills that befall it, independent of homosexuality ... would you even know about it?

It's easy to cast stones at straw men you build yourself.

[BillJasper]

I just think the safest bet is too allow these folks to marry. If God disapproves he can always send them to Hell later.

Though I doubt he really cares...

[RainMaker]

It really comes down to this, going way back to where I began. Many of you and I just have a radically different perception of what is and isn't ethical. I just happen to hold to the ethics common to one of the world's largest religions and the faith that heavily influenced the founding of the country I live in. Why does this surprise and infuriate (many of) you so much? Welcome to America.

That's not what it comes down to. We all have different perceptions on what is and isn't ethical. You are 100% correct on that. The difference is that you want other consenting adults to be forced to abide by your ethics.

If you are against homosexuality, you don't have to participate in it, you don't have to marry a member of the same-sex, you don't have to be nice to homosexuals, and you don't have to show up to their weddings. Your personal ethics and your religious beliefs are not infringed on in any way. Your life does not change in any way.

But this isn't about your personal ethics. It isn't about what the Bible says. This is about getting off on telling others what they should be allowed to do. The Bible and your religion is just a convenient excuse to express it without blowback. And don't get me wrong, this happens all the time outside religion too. Mayor Bloomberg wants to force his diet on you in New York City. There is a segment of the population who isn't satisfied enough living their own lives, they need to force others to live their lives the way they want to as well. And they'll hide behind religion or faux-concern to make it happen.

When someone says a gay couple is getting married, or someone is buying a 64oz Big Gulp, your answer should be the same, who gives a shit?

[BillJasper]

When someone says a gay couple is getting married, or someone is buying a 64oz Big Gulp, your answer should be the same, who gives a shit?

+1

[JPhillips]

What's your point, besides trying to be snotty?

I've already admitted that my ethical position is on its way toward being the minority in America, if it isn't there already, and of course, Christianity is a minority in the world as a whole. That doesn't mean it isn't one of the world's major faiths - one of the largest 2 or 3, if I'm not mistaken. Even if it's only top 10, we're talking millions and millions of people. Regardless, it's a significant faith in America, so I ask the question again, why are people surprised and darn near hysterical when one of the nation's most prominent viewpoints is expressed?

Really. (Many of) you do your side in this argument a disservice. (And before you say it, yes I KNOW many on my side do, too. In fact, I blame the decline of Christianity in the U.S. solely on the stupidity of the people who practice it).

I'm merely pointing out that opposition to gay marriage can't be described as the ethical position of Christianity. Your viewpoint isn't the only one.

[revrew]

That's not what it comes down to. We all have different perceptions on what is and isn't ethical. You are 100% correct on that. The difference is that you want other consenting adults to be forced to abide by your ethics.

If you are against homosexuality, you don't have to participate in it, you don't have to marry a member of the same-sex, you don't have to be nice to homosexuals, and you don't have to show up to their weddings. Your personal ethics and your religious beliefs are not infringed on in any way. Your life does not change in any way.

But this isn't about your personal ethics. It isn't about what the Bible says. This is about getting off on telling others what they should be allowed to do. The Bible and your religion is just a convenient excuse to express it without blowback. And don't get me wrong, this happens all the time outside religion too. Mayor Bloomberg wants to force his diet on you in New York City. There is a segment of the population who isn't satisfied enough living their own lives, they need to force others to live their lives the way they want to as well. And they'll hide behind religion or faux-concern to make it happen.

When someone says a gay couple is getting married, or someone is buying a 64oz Big Gulp, your answer should be the same, who gives a shit?

See now, I can respect this argument (except for that "This is about getting off ... and Bible and your religion is just an excuse" bit. That's a, frankly, bigoted insult, and I would hope you're a big enough man to apologize for such a remark - but back to the point). It's coherent, even if I disagree with it.

I would argue the "You want other adults to be forced to abide by your ethics" is exactly backwards. No, I don't. I don't want to use the power of the government to force people to be straight.

Rather, it is YOU who want to force me to live by your ethics. 1st, I do believe homosexuality advocates are trying to use the power of government to compel Americans to accept homosexuality as ethical. But even if that were not true:

You want me to fund tax benefits and all kinds of other government privileges for the support of homosexual relationships. Right now, I do not. But under your preferred law, I would. And why? Why would I do this? Because you can show its a benefit to society and an institution worth protecting? No, but because YOUR ethics and sense of fairness dictate it.

All in all, however, I consider both arguments -yours and the one I just made - somewhat silly.

Government, as I said before, is run by ethics. All laws are ethics. It's just a matter of whose ethics. And yes, I prefer mine to yours.

[revrew]

I'm merely pointing out that opposition to gay marriage can't be described as the ethical position of Christianity. Your viewpoint isn't the only one.

Ah, fair enough. Forgive me if I overreacted.

Now we get into the question of what is "actually" Christianity and what is only fake Christianity. I don't really want to go there. I do think it is fair, however, to say that the vast majority of Christianity in the world is made up of Catholicism and the "evangelical" faiths. (The influence of the "mainline" churches around the world has been slipping dramatically - evident in Europe, no?) And Catholicism and evangelical Christianity both stand opposed to homosexuality ethically (even if their members do not).

[revrew]

Sorry, guys, life is calling. Gotta go. The question was asked, "Why do you oppose homosexual marriage?" and I hope I answered clearly enough.

[ISiddiqui]

Blackadar, your argument is garbage. It's a theological straw man/circular argument that begins with the assumption Christians cherry pick, then drums up a host of bad theology to prove that Christians cherry pick.

Sound theology and a few basic rules of Scriptural interpretation can blow all these out of the water with ease. But that's another thread. You want to start it, we can discuss it there.

To be honest, and I can see where you come to your beliefs, I can easily say that opposition to homosexuality is based on cherry picking and bad theology as well. And it isn't simply liberal theology (in its actual, classic Schleirmacher-esque meaning) that I would be citing.

I think the poster was trying to ask what is your basic rule of interpretation - though admittedly he may have said it in an aggressive posture.

[RedKingGold]

I would love to hear some of the people against it actually provide reason why. I know we have seen a few responses but not many.

After reading two pages of the wolves descending upon rev, I just wonder why.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah, fair enough. Forgive me if I overreacted.

Now we get into the question of what is "actually" Christianity and what is only fake Christianity. I don't really want to go there. I do think it is fair, however, to say that the vast majority of Christianity in the world is made up of Catholicism and the "evangelical" faiths. (The influence of the "mainline" churches around the world has been slipping dramatically - evident in Europe, no?) And Catholicism and evangelical Christianity both stand opposed to homosexuality ethically (even if their members do not).

Careful. While mainline Protestant attendees may be slipping, they still make up a good amount of worldwide Christianity (at least 300 million). The Catholic Church is by far the largest - of course Evangelical Christianity has a LOT of differences with the Catholic Church (including some who still consider it to be not really Christian).

Also there is evidence that the younger generation of Evangelicals are more open towards homosexuality.

Of course the numbers of a denomination does not in any way equal the truth of its doctrine, no?

[Suburban Rhythm]

I asked this (I think) earlier in the thread, but curious how it would be justified (for lack of a better word)

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn

I was raised, and still am, a practicing Catholic. I can't wrap my head around "this one line over here, says this is bad" and having that override "here is how you should live: Do unto others as you've have done to you".

[Crapshoot]

After reading two pages of the wolves descending upon rev, I just wonder why.

The wolves? In 1960, if you opposed civil rights, I hope you'd be looked upon the same way.