Well, given that marriage began as something of a religious concept, it is difficult to divorce it (so to speak) from a religious argument. I was unaware that there even were non-religious arguments against it.
Also, that is one snazzy signature you got there. :3
Let me try.
Women have this thing called cooties, men have those things called dooties. If you initiate a marriage between a man and a woman, the cooties and dooties mix together, it creates a chemical reaction that prevent the marriage from making a big explosion like a nuclear bomb. If there are only cooties or only dooties, the chemical reaction will not work, and therefore explosion.
…
…
…
I am not very good at that, I guess. Well, at least I tried . Honestly cannot find any better reason.
The social tradition is based entirely on religion so if you remove religion from it, which is what same sex marriage would do you cheapen the concept.
You can legally have a same sex committed relationship, so why not settle for that. The purpose of same sex 'marriage' is to demand the right to impose an alien worldview on a religious principle. It appears to be about tolerance yet is the opposite.
If a same sex partnership is called something else other than a marriage there is no challenge to the concept of marriage.
The problem however is that many laws differ between married couples and unmarried couples, in this secular law has to change to permit a registry equal to marriage without marriage occurring. Thus in actuality it is a legislative not a religious issue, but its easier to force change on religion under a mantra of 'tolerance' than to change legislation to extend legal coverage for married people to all couples in a formally registered relationship.
Some people do not like it because it 'destroys family life.'
They think that if little Timmy has two mummies or two daddies then he is going to be bullied at school and you should feel ashamed for what you will do to poor little Timmy.
There is also the issue of succession. As of yet there is no way for a two men or two women to have genetic offspring. As such people don't like it because it destroys family lines.
curran12 wrote: Well, given that marriage began as something of a religious concept
Except of course it didn't, and was more of an exchange of goods/land and/or political ties/power. Traditional marriage is something of a misnomer as there is no singular tradition and they can vary quite a bit from culture to culture.
A discussion of marriage without religion? Seeing as that marriage is a religious concept, that is kinda hard.
In any case, marriage is a traditional bond between a man and woman. Same-sex marriage perverts that tradition into something entirely different.
I am not against something like a 'special bond' between two gays, but please don't call it marriage. Invent a new word for it instead, like 'Life partnership' or something like that.
Also, that is another discussion, but I really pity the children of same-sex couples. You really don't want your classmates to find out that you have two gay dads. Two lesbian moms is not as bad (at least when you're a boy), but you will probably still be made fun of.
For me, I think it's down to the fact that when an organisation reaches an age & size similar to that of a geological process, it will become as receptive to change as said geological process. E.g. it' will take a heck of a long time before anything we do affects the way continental drift drifts continentally...
Edit:
With regards to the 'religion' debate, I think that only really applies in nations where there is no separation between Marriage (in the religious sense) and Marriage (in the legal sense), and lets face it, most of the nations that don't distinguish between the two tend to be even less tolerant of homosexuality than the current gay marriage debate.
This thread has been done over and over again. Marriage for everyone is going to happen, and people are just going to fight it tooth and nails and look stupid until they give up.
50 years ago I wouldn't have been able to marry my wife for the same reasons that are given today. And in the future people will look at people fighting same-sex marriage the same way we look at people fighting interracial marriage.
There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.
There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.
Oh really?
In my opinion, the right to engage in "marriage" should not be dictated or regulated by the state in any way shape or form. Neither traditional nor same sex marriage should be recognized by any government entity. The same rights and privileges of inheritance should be freely transferable to any other individual or entity without restriction.
There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.
Oh really?
In my opinion, the right to engage in "marriage" should not be dictated or regulated by the state in any way shape or form. Neither traditional nor same sex marriage should be recognized by any government entity. The same rights and privileges of inheritance should be freely transferable to any other individual or entity without restriction.
That is a non-religious argument.
That's a non-religious argument against state regulation of all marriage, not a non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.
Another is children/adoption and inheritence after that. Male parentage was assumed under the law by the husband, as was inheritence to those children. Historically also raising said children, and social protection for the mothers.
Currently a lot of that is out the window. I still contend that an ideal situation for raising kids is father and mother to get both perspectives (and grandparents and extended family). But life is not an ideal situation and there are plenty of great parents of every hue, affiliation, and gender, and yet still not enough to go around for all the kids waiting to be adopted.
Raise them right, raise them proppa, raise them fierce.
Deviant behavior is any behavior that is contrary to the dominant norms of society. There are many different theories on what causes a person to perform deviant behavior, including biological explanations, psychological explanations, and sociological explanations. Following are some of the major psychological explanations for deviant behavior.
There are several fundamental assumptions that all psychological theories on deviance have in common. First, the individual is the primary unit of analysis in psychological theories of deviance. That is, individual human beings are solely responsible for their criminal or deviant acts. Second, an individual’s personality is the major motivational element that derives behavior within individuals. Third, criminals and deviants are seen as suffering from personality deficiencies. Thus, crimes result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual. Finally, these defective or abnormal mental processes could be caused from a variety of things, including a diseased mind, inappropriate learning, improper conditioning, and the absence of appropriate role models or the strong presence of inappropriate role models.
Psychoanalytic Theory
Psychoanalytic theory, which was developed by Sigmund Freud, states that all humans have natural drives and urges that are repressed in the unconscious. Additionally, all humans have criminal tendencies. These tendencies are curbed, however, through the process of socialization. A child that is improperly socialized, then, could develop a personality disturbance that causes him or her to direct antisocial impulses either inward or outward. Those who direct them inward become neurotic while those that direct them outward become criminal.
Cognitive Development Theory
According to the cognitive development theory, criminal and deviant behavior results from the way in which individuals organize their thoughts around morality and the law. Lawrence Kohlberg, a developmental psychologist, theorized that there are three levels of moral reasoning. During the first stage, called the preconventional stage, which is reached during middle childhood, moral reasoning is based on obedience and avoiding punishment. The second level is called the conventional level and is reached at the end of middle childhood. During this stage, moral reasoning is based on the expectations that the child’s family and significant others have for him or her. The third level of moral reasoning, the postconventional level, is reached during early adulthood at which point individuals are able to go beyond social conventions. That is, they value the laws of the social system. People who do not progress through these stages may become stuck in their moral development and as a result become deviants or criminals.
Learning Theory
Learning theory is based on the principles of behavioral psychology, which hypothesizes that a person’s behavior is learned and maintained by its consequences or rewards. Individuals thus learn deviant and criminal behavior by observing other people and witnessing the rewards or consequences that their behavior receives. For example, an individual who observes a friend shoplifting an item and not getting caught sees that the friend is not being punished for their actions and they are rewarded by getting to keep the item he or she stole. That individual might be more likely to shoplift, then, if they believe he or she will be rewarded with the same outcome. According to this theory, if this is how deviant behavior is developed, then taking away the reward value of the behavior can eliminate deviant behavior.
Ahtman wrote:Except of course it didn't, and was more of an exchange of goods/land and/or political ties/power. Traditional marriage is something of a misnomer as there is no singular tradition and they can vary quite a bit from culture to culture.
It is absolutely shocking how many people do not realize this. Marriage, like most legal matters, are all about who has power and who doesn't. Arranged marriages between royalty weren't about love or faith or any of that nonsense. They were about solidifying bloodlines, trading land and property, and basically doing everything in their power to STAY in power. Religious "for love" marriage is a relatively new concept, and one that hasn't even been adopted in all parts of the world at that!
dereksatkinson wrote:The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.
Incorrect. There are basically 2 kinds of marriage at this point: legal and ceremonial. Legal marriages bring with them all sorts of benefits and allowances by the state. Visitation rights, tax benefits, survivor benefits, etc. etc. etc. These are things that, because they can and usually do involve money, the government should be sure are available to all people without any sort of discrimination. Anything less would be a violation of equal protection. Ceremonial marriages are the religious ones that have no meaning whatsoever. They confer no legal benefits, unless backed up by a legal government marriage license. A good example of this (at least as it pertains to the US) would be those (rare) places where polygamy is still practiced. Those people are married in the eyes of their church, family and friends, but as far as the government is concerned that marriage is nonexistant.
Incorrect. There are basically 2 kinds of marriage at this point: legal and ceremonial. Legal marriages bring with them all sorts of benefits and allowances by the state. Visitation rights, tax benefits, survivor benefits, etc. etc. etc. These are things that, because they can and usually do involve money, the government should be sure are available to all people without any sort of discrimination. Anything less would be a violation of equal protection.
Which is why I don't think that they should be able to dictate who you grant these rights to. Under the law, there should be no benefit to being married that can not be obtained through other legal channels.
streamdragon wrote: Ceremonial marriages are the religious ones that have no meaning whatsoever. They confer no legal benefits, unless backed up by a legal government marriage license. A good example of this (at least as it pertains to the US) would be those (rare) places where polygamy is still practiced. Those people are married in the eyes of their church, family and friends, but as far as the government is concerned that marriage is nonexistant.
Since this isn't the part that is regulated by the government, it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
One of the most amusing recent arguments against gay marriage was Kentucky's attempt to argue how vital it was that marriage had to be between a man or a woman, or else there wouldn't be any babies.
It makes you wonder whether the poor saps who have to draw up these motions know they have a gak job with intelligent way of actually presenting a position and are doing the best they can with it, or actually believe it, and just can't think through the logical conclusion of what they're advocating.
"cause the wording of Kentucky's stance means they also think that old people shouldn't be allowed to (or stay, I suppose) marry. Or couple with fertility problems. Or couples who don't want to have children.
*edit*
And the real point is that the government is perfectly justified in defining the legal aspects of marriage, which should apply equally to everybody. Whatever any religion wants to treat them like is between the adherents and their doctrine, but when marriage effects taxes, and other civil matters, religion should have no roll at all.
Incorrect. There are basically 2 kinds of marriage at this point: legal and ceremonial. Legal marriages bring with them all sorts of benefits and allowances by the state. Visitation rights, tax benefits, survivor benefits, etc. etc. etc. These are things that, because they can and usually do involve money, the government should be sure are available to all people without any sort of discrimination. Anything less would be a violation of equal protection.
Which is why I don't think that they should be able to dictate who you grant these rights to. Under the law, there should be no benefit to being married that can not be obtained through other legal channels.
streamdragon wrote: Ceremonial marriages are the religious ones that have no meaning whatsoever. They confer no legal benefits, unless backed up by a legal government marriage license. A good example of this (at least as it pertains to the US) would be those (rare) places where polygamy is still practiced. Those people are married in the eyes of their church, family and friends, but as far as the government is concerned that marriage is nonexistant.
Since this isn't the part that is regulated by the government, it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
To the first paragraph: Considering those rights play directly into other government functions (taxes, medical power of attorney, etc), the government does have a say. And most (but not all) of those benefits CAN be obtained through other legal channels; marriage simply gives you the entire thing in a package deal of government and legal benefits.
As to the second: That was a direct statement to your "marriage isn't a right the government grants you". An agreement of sorts. You are free to symbolically marry who or whatever you want; it is just meaningless when it comes to legal ramifications and benefits.
Another is children/adoption and inheritence after that. Male parentage was assumed under the law by the husband, as was inheritence to those children.
Historically also raising said children, and social protection for the mothers.
Currently a lot of that is out the window.
I still contend that an ideal situation for raising kids is father and mother to get both perspectives (and grandparents and extended family). But life is not an ideal situation and there are plenty of great parents of every hue, affiliation, and gender, and yet still not enough to go around for all the kids waiting to be adopted.
Raise them right, raise them proppa, raise them fierce.
My proffessor once responded to a question "What is your Ideal family" He said?
"What gets you through life, what works for you. The leave-it-to-beaver Family rarely ever existed. In the end, if you are not a murderer or a feth up, your family worked"
Factually, the best way to raise kids is in a stable, emotionally healthy environment. The gender involved is fairly irrelevant.
Pat Conroy's books about his family, like The Great Santini, have that external image of the perfect nuclear family - military father, stay at home mother, 2.x kids, etc, show this off pretty well. A terrible, screwed up family environment gets you screwed up people, no matter what the gender assignment.
I have a terribly hard time worrying about what two consenting adults two houses down from me are doing, gay or straight as long as it stays between the two of them. And I have an even harder time figuring out why anyone else should either.
And a gay couple with a kid just says "dual income household" to me, which in the case of a child, is always best (not necessarily right, just best).
I might think people who follow the furry lifestyle are batgak crazy, but I don't lobby with a political body to force them see my way.
Just because "it's icky" is not a good anti-same sex marriage argument.
It's 2014, sometimes girls like girls and boys like boys. Who cares?... Some. Sadly, but they're dying off, hell the head of the westboro baptist church is in the ground and plenty of other old timers who are outraged by "the gays" will likely join him in the ground before ya know it.
Young people don't care, they really don't give a damn, even the hardcore conservative youngsters don't seem to care. More and more independent denominations of the church don't even care, their numbers are dwindling anyway, a lot of them can't afford to care. Any pr executive on the planet will tell you where this is "trending" and what side to be on.
If you don't like gay marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex then. Seems simple. Gay marriage has been legal in canada for almost a decade. The only people who cared were the same ones who take pictures of taco bell and try and pass them off as abortions.
dereksatkinson wrote: The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.
This is my opinion as well. I don't believe the state should have a role in solemnizing any marriage regardless of the specifics of the participants; nor should it give any benefit or penalty to such status.
dereksatkinson wrote: The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.
This is my opinion as well. I don't believe the state should have a role in solemnizing any marriage regardless of the specifics of the participants; nor should it give any benefit or penalty to such status.
Although they should be putting a hand in it when legal matters are involved, like establishing next of kin. The importance of just that one thing when it comes to any kind of marriage is HUGE, as I am now married after dating for seven years.
All those years I was lucky not to have been just where the same sex couples are right now- if the significant other is in the hospital and unable to make decisions and their family doesn't like you, you are screwed if you want to see them, even if you are absolutely sure you know their wishes, becuase you are considered absolutely nothing in the eyes of the law because of the status of same-sex couples currently.
But like I have always held as a belief, the only other person's sexual nature I care about is the one I am having sex with. Everyone else gets a *shrug*.
dereksatkinson wrote: The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.
This is my opinion as well. I don't believe the state should have a role in solemnizing any marriage regardless of the specifics of the participants; nor should it give any benefit or penalty to such status.
And I'll third this.
It's a neat idea, but not anything that we can implement today. Marriage is written into so many laws from city levels to federal levels that you will never be able to undo marriage as a legal status. It's similar to gun laws: ideas like gun control look good on paper, but once you realize that you can't undo centuries of "everybody have a gun" reality sets in. Same with marriage, we have had centuries of "marriage" as a legal status, even non-governmental agencies and businesses rely on that legal status to make decisions and to provide benefits. Credit, health insurance, regular insurance, hospital visits, etc. We are just too deep now to undo that.
dereksatkinson wrote: The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.
This is my opinion as well. I don't believe the state should have a role in solemnizing any marriage regardless of the specifics of the participants; nor should it give any benefit or penalty to such status.
And I'll third this.
Agreed.
D-usa, I disagree it's impossible. Take the state out of it, call everything "partners" as far as the state is concerned. Problem solved. The state doesn't determine who I marry and honestly shouldn't for anyone.
So, a long time ago, like forever ago, there was a society of happily married men. they lived with their husbands in harmony with the nomadic tribes of women. the gay men knew that they could not bear children and so struck a deal with the nomadic women. the lesbian women were happy to bear their young, to boost their ranks with more females. each cycle the men and women would meet, exchange pleasantries and children, over time it became a festival where the children could play while the adults did adult things, like drink and talk. the children grew learning to love their own gender, but one year a couple of children one boy, and one girl fell in love. their families were pretty OK with it because they had no reason to hate love. years pass, and the couple had a family, and decided to move out on their own, to make their own farm, and raise their children. over the years couples of one man and one woman formed around this first couples farm and eventually created a township. over one hundred years since the first couple of one man and one woman, bandits and raiders plagued the countryside. The society of man was ransacked, and many were killed. The tribes of women tried to help, but were ultimately defeated. Not knowing of the third society, the society of mixed genders, the raiders left the land ransacked. The society expanded into the abandoned city of Man. and by three hundred years later, the societies of Man, and the tribes of Women were forgotten, or on purpose, discredited and hidden.
thousands of years later, the agents of the one who must not be named stand guard, preventing the prosperous societies of old to be re-created, making same sex marriage to be looked down on, and snubbed in society at large.
The argument does not exist, it is smoke and mirrors hiding the truth. The real truth, which will never be known.
There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.
Oh really?
In my opinion, the right to engage in "marriage" should not be dictated or regulated by the state in any way shape or form. Neither traditional nor same sex marriage should be recognized by any government entity. The same rights and privileges of inheritance should be freely transferable to any other individual or entity without restriction.
That is a non-religious argument.
It's also either a non-sequitor or a disingenuous argument, as you are not arguing against gay marriage, you are arguing against state recognition of all marriage. If you make an argument against all marriages, but only when gay marriage is being proposed then you are actually changing the subject in a misleading way, and could be accused of intellectual dishonesty. Do you only ever object to the state being involved in marriages when the topic is gay marriage? If so, you might consider whether that's your real objection or not.
Let's assume that ending state recognition of marriage -- which is completely fundamental to a vast swath of civil law -- is off the table. That is a non-starter, there is not now nor will there ever be the political will to end the state recognition of marriage. It would so completely screw inheritance law that vast fortunes would suddenly be vulnerable to government seizure, which means it flat out cannot and will not happen.
So, given that - is there an argument against gay marriage that is not founded on either a religious belief about the immorality of homosexual relations (or a unexamined, knee-jerk and immature "two guys kissing? eew! gross!" reaction)? I have never heard of any such argument.
friendlycommissar wrote: So, given that - is there an argument against gay marriage that is not founded on either a religious belief about the immorality of homosexual relations (or a unexamined, knee-jerk and immature "two guys kissing? eew! gross!" reaction)? I have never heard of any such argument.
The other argument is that the state has an interest in perpetuating itself and so has a bias towards recognizing marriages that will produce offspring.
It's a gakky argument, obviously, since plenty of couple marry and don't have kids, or people who have had hysterectomies or vasectomies or are just barren or whatever still get married, but you asked and there it is.
friendlycommissar wrote: It's also either a non-sequitor or a disingenuous argument, as you are not arguing against gay marriage, you are arguing against state recognition of all marriage. If you make an argument against all marriages, but only when gay marriage is being proposed then you are actually changing the subject in a misleading way, and could be accused of intellectual dishonesty. Do you only ever object to the state being involved in marriages when the topic is gay marriage?
This was asked of Derek, but I'll answer since I feel the same way.
Since straight marriage is so much more common, it's rare that anyone should ask me, "how do you feel about straight people getting married"; but I assure you my answer would be the same: that marriage is a private covenant between two consenting adults and does not require government participation.
People can be completely bigoted about gay marriage without being religious about it. It's just harder to avoid owning the blame for being said bigot, though.
Co'tor Shas wrote: ...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.
Thanks
Change is scary and people hate it. And when it's a change that only benefits somebody else, well then you're asking people to get scared about a change that won't even help them. So they oppose it.
I think that explains most of the fundamental emotional drive that leads people to oppose gay marriage, religious or otherwise.
Everything else, all those silly arguments we've heard hundreds of times, that stuff is all basically just made up to justify that base emotion, that anxiety about change.
All those years I was lucky not to have been just where the same sex couples are right now- if the significant other is in the hospital and unable to make decisions and their family doesn't like you, you are screwed if you want to see them, even if you are absolutely sure you know their wishes, becuase you are considered absolutely nothing in the eyes of the law because of the status of same-sex couples currently.
Living Will. DNR is another
One needs to do research into these. First though one has to be aware of them.
d-usa wrote: Letting everybody marry would mean that they don't determine who you marry though.
Exactly, which is why most people are okay with it as the easiest to implement solution available. But removing government from determining "marriage" (most people don't consider themselves married because of going to the court house, but because of the ceremony / commitment they make) and just calling everything "partners" as far the government concerned would be more accurate, honestly. As many have noted, marriage is a religious idea in and of itself. I have no problem with this, but it does make using the term more broadly a bit inaccurate.
In the end I voted FOR gay marriage in Maryland when it was on the ballot. But only because there was no civil union option. Given how people are using the term, it's a lot more appropriate and that is what I support- civil rights for all unions. That has incredibly broad support. "Marriage" is the incendiary term, and what the government really shouldn't be in the business of determining. Government status matters for civil rights, and that's why to me supporting civil unions is a no brainer. But using a religious term to describe that civil status is what causes all the drama, unnecessarily in my view. The end result is the same, equal recognition and rights for all... but using the term "marriage" is going to continue to be a huge stumbling block to getting equal rights for all unions sooner.
Federal action is likely the only fast way, as the easy states (like Maryland) have mostly all taken action already, or are in the process of doing so. A civil union law at the federal level is the ideal, fastest solution, to me.
If you do some research you will find marriage was not originally religious but as a way to combine land ownership. Even men would marry other men for such a purpose. You will also fine marriage laws came around way before Christianity for example just look up the code of hammurabi.
But the word "Marriage" has to be in it or its a no deal. Give them the rights now and eventually 30-40 years down the road the word marriage slides back in to cover all
To me, getting rid of "marriage" and using another term just feels like a "if we can't keep it for ourselves then nobody can have it" solution.
Not saying that denying marriage to gay couples would be the motivation for everybody that argues against marriage, but to me it would still feel like a win for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
I thought the "win" is for the same rights as traditional married couples. You need like two more generations to get past mindsets now Give them the rights same as traditional couples and eventually it becomes so common to see that the word "Marriage" is back in use to cover all.
Its about the only way to get both State and Federal out of the issue they shouldn't be in in the first place
You mean Judaism, right? I'm assuming that's what you meant.
I wasn't referring to any specific religion- most religions have marriage, and most people consider it a religious convention. How it came about thousands of years ago doesn't seem all that relevant to this discussion. This is all in the context of modern democracy- go back very far and this was a non issue for many other reasons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yeah, that's why civil unions only work if government considers all unions the same. Separate but equal sucks, and doesn't work.
d-usa wrote: To me, getting rid of "marriage" and using another term just feels like a "if we can't keep it for ourselves then nobody can have it" solution.
Not saying that denying marriage to gay couples would be the motivation for everybody that argues against marriage, but to me it would still feel like a win for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
It also gets to the point which is that marriage being handled by government and business isn't in itself a problem. As with all things, stupid policies are the problem. Married/partnered/civil unioned whatever you want to call it. As a legal status identifying individuals in a familial committed relationship (or whatever I assume people know what I mean here) is practical for a lot of things. Too practical to really toss out the window.
You can change the word but it's the same thing and oddly enough will be subject to the same kinds of problems.
RiTides wrote: I wasn't referring to any specific religion- most religions have marriage, and most people consider it a religious convention.
I think that's going to depend on where you are. Here in Oz, we have far more weddings conducted by civil celebrants than by priests these days, even though only around 25% of the population identify themselves as having no religious affiliation. More and more people are seeing marriage as something that is between themselves and their partner, and nothing at all to do with a church.
Vash- You apparently don't mean in general, as your second clause clearly points out . If you want to talk about the origin of marriage, it's wayyyyyyyyyy before Jesus came on the scene. If you want to consider that tradition, then you're taking about Judaism and the Torah, not Christianity.
But that's getting a bit far afield particularly in a thread about non-religious considerations for gay marriage. As a strictly civil issue, it has broad support, even from most religious people I know. But that's strictly as a civil / equal rights issue, which is all that really matters regarding government involvement.
And I agree with you on marriage being around before that. But the main thing against it here is people pushing bigotry and playing on peoples fears to keep it down.
Edit: I know they said with out religion in the OP but it is a huge issue to ignore it the way it is being used.
Co'tor Shas wrote: ...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.
"Ewww, gross."
Anything more complicated than that can be accurately summed up as "I'm a repulsive bigot, but I don't want to admit that I'm a repulsive bigot so I'll make up a bunch of nonsense so I don't have to state my reasons openly".
RiTides wrote: As many have noted, marriage is a religious idea in and of itself. I have no problem with this, but it does make using the term more broadly a bit inaccurate.
It really isn't. Plenty of friends of mine had non-religious ceremonies, and they're not any less married than I am. And religious people I know don't consider those people who got non-religious ceremonies any less married.
This whole thing about marriage being a religious thing really is something people just made up recently.
The end result is the same, equal recognition and rights for all... but using the term "marriage" is going to continue to be a huge stumbling block to getting equal rights for all unions sooner.
True, but ultimately, beyond simply granting people the exact legal rights, there is something to be said for social inclusion. That telling people you get the stuff we get, but you have to call yours a different name really isn't good enough.
Crablezworth wrote: It's 2014, sometimes girls like girls and boys like boys. Who cares?... Some. Sadly, but they're dying off, hell the head of the westboro baptist church is in the ground and plenty of other old timers who are outraged by "the gays" will likely join him in the ground before ya know it.
Young people don't care, they really don't give a damn, even the hardcore conservative youngsters don't seem to care. More and more independent denominations of the church don't even care, their numbers are dwindling anyway, a lot of them can't afford to care. Any pr executive on the planet will tell you where this is "trending" and what side to be on.
If you don't like gay marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex then. Seems simple. Gay marriage has been legal in canada for almost a decade. The only people who cared were the same ones who take pictures of taco bell and try and pass them off as abortions.
Welcome to Russia.
It is the exact opposite here. The older Soviet generation is a lot more tolerant towards gays than the young generation, church membership is growing by the day and Putin aims to become the Champion of Conservatism and good old-fashioned family values to fight against the evil, decadent West, passing a whole lot of laws against gays, with overwhelming support of the people.
Now someone make a Russian reversal joke about it.
If the West truly wants to help homosexuals in Russia, they should outlaw gay marriage and become very anti-gay. Than we shall see how quickly Putin and Russia start championing gay rights
d-usa wrote: Letting everybody marry would mean that they don't determine who you marry though.
It's called liberty..
d-usa wrote: To me, getting rid of "marriage" and using another term just feels like a "if we can't keep it for ourselves then nobody can have it" solution.
Not saying that denying marriage to gay couples would be the motivation for everybody that argues against marriage, but to me it would still feel like a win for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
That is NOT what I've argued. In principle, the state simply shouldn't care. If two brothers live in the same household and support eachother they should be able to file a joint tax return. They shouldn't have to, but the option should be on the table. From the government perspective, it shouldn't matter who you are plowing. What should matter is who lives in your household and who contributes to it functioning properly.
And yes... I realize it's not really an argument against same-sex marriage as much as it is an argument against regulation of marriage in and of itself. The biggest problem with this topic is the waters are muddied which is causing people to ask the wrong question. The REAL question is whether or not the way the government regulates this is right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: But that's getting a bit far afield particularly in a thread about non-religious considerations for gay marriage. As a strictly civil issue, it has broad support, even from most religious people I know. But that's strictly as a civil / equal rights issue, which is all that really matters regarding government involvement.
And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.
I agree with Derek, if I decide to live with a sibling I should get tax breaks, just like a couple. Why not? The issue gets muddied because of a word (like "marriage") which has vastly different meanings for people. Civil rights is the issue, so pass a civil rights law. It's the fastest way. In this country, my state already approved this (and I voted for it). But to get support nationally, focusing on the civil rights issue is the winning argument, imo.
Co'tor Shas wrote: ...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.
"Ewww, gross."
Anything more complicated than that can be accurately summed up as "I'm a repulsive bigot, but I don't want to admit that I'm a repulsive bigot so I'll make up a bunch of nonsense so I don't have to state my reasons openly".
Quoted For Truth.
Otherwise why else are all common examples two men, not two women? Fratboy homophobia, that's why..
And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.
Actually, during the Late-Middle Ages is when marriage became a "religious" thing. It originally started out as a power play.... It used to be, especially among the nobility, that marriages were used to unite two houses, expand land borders, secure peace treaties, etc. Along came this idea that kings/queens had a "Divine Right" to be the king/queen. So someone got it in there head, that they would get the local priest to say that God had condoned/blessed the union, and therefore secured the divinity of this "Right". Pretty soon, minor lordlings, knights and just about anyone who could claim to be a noble was doing the same thing. Eventually, the Church (since at this time there was still really only the one kind) realized that they were sitting on a great racket, and they began sort of, charging for the service of a wedding to create "holy matrimony".... That was all starting round the 1200s or so. Eventually arriving to a point where every wedding *had* to be performed at the local church by a priest, or else it was viewed as being a sacrilege.
Fast forward a bit, and now the Church has a bit less "power" but the State now realizes that the church has had sole domain of this racket, and creates a marriage license, thus creating their own racket (as well as jumping in on the one the church has had for a few hundred years). So really, in the whole of human history, the idea that a marriage is religious actually IS pretty recent, given the length of time we're discussing.
And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.
I agree with Derek, if I decide to live with a sibling I should get tax breaks, just like a couple. Why not? The issue gets muddied because of a word (like "marriage") which has vastly different meanings for people. Civil rights is the issue, so pass a civil rights law. It's the fastest way. In this country, my state already approved this (and I voted for it). But to get support nationally, focusing on the civil rights issue is the winning argument, imo.
It depends what you call recent. Religious marriages were imposed in the UK in the mid 18th century.
As regards the tax issue, there is a reasonable argument that everyone should be taxed as an individual. If you decide to shack up with your brother, cousin, a friend or a marriage partner, it should not affect your tax status at all. Why should you get a tax break?
The reasoning behind the tax breaks for married people is firstly that children are best produced within a stable married life and secondly that couples who get formally married are registered, which allows the state to administer tax breaks for them. (Not that the tax breaks are that good in the UK anyway.)
Agreed regarding what the issues are KK, and it looks like we've got a lot of issues mixed together here. Because we were discussing it in light of Judaism earlier, here is a quick page on the origin of marriage in that particular culture / religion:
Obviously, how countries, societies, religions all over the world recognize marriage is going to be different. Speaking only for myself, the state of Maryland giving me a certificate is not what made me consider myself married.
This is why, in my view, I only really care what the government does about this regarding civil rights- and those rights should extend to all unions. I think the vast majority of people are pretty well agreed upon that, at least, which is great.
But how marriage is viewed (as a religious, state, or simply personal arrangement) is probably too broad a topic to accurately summarize, as there are so many different facets to it depending on country/religion/worldview, as several of you have rightfully pointed out. A few have done so in quite different ways, though, which makes sense given that we're all coming from different starting points (and different countries, which is also great). The responses here illustrate how differently the term is viewed by different people, which makes it challenging to make any kind of broad statements about it.
AegisGrimm wrote: Otherwise why else are all common examples two men, not two women? Fratboy homophobia, that's why..
Why are you so intolerant of fratboy homophobia?
I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it. Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral? no.. What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.
Bigotry is defined as..
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Having an opinion isn't what makes one a bigot. It's being intolerant of others that have a different opinion. In fact, an example of bigotry would be to attack religion and religious people for believing that homosexuality is immoral. Being intolerant of religion is much more politically correct than being intolerant of homosexuality in the USA today.
I would argue that there are way more bigoted comments in here than most people realize...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards the tax issue, there is a reasonable argument that everyone should be taxed as an individual. If you decide to shack up with your brother, cousin, a friend or a marriage partner, it should not affect your tax status at all. Why should you get a tax break?
Why should income be taxed in the 1st place? Why not have all taxes be consumption based?
AegisGrimm wrote: Otherwise why else are all common examples two men, not two women? Fratboy homophobia, that's why..
Why are you so intolerant of fratboy homophobia?
I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it. Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral? no.. What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.
Bigotry is defined as..
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Having an opinion isn't what makes one a bigot. It's being intolerant of others that have a different opinion. In fact, an example of bigotry would be to attack religion and religious people for believing that homosexuality is immoral. Being intolerant of religion is much more politically correct than being intolerant of homosexuality in the USA today.
I would argue that there are way more bigoted comments in here than most people realize...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards the tax issue, there is a reasonable argument that everyone should be taxed as an individual. If you decide to shack up with your brother, cousin, a friend or a marriage partner, it should not affect your tax status at all. Why should you get a tax break?
Why should income be taxed in the 1st place? Why not have all taxes be consumption based?
They get to tax you twice now. Two smaller taxes are easier pills to swallow then huge price hikes on consumptions. Not to mention that this would be terrible for your export. People from the US would just start buying stuff from other countries.
Ouze wrote: The other argument is that the state has an interest in perpetuating itself and so has a bias towards recognizing marriages that will produce offspring....It's a gakky argument, obviously, since plenty of couple marry and don't have kids, or people who have had hysterectomies or vasectomies or are just barren or whatever still get married, but you asked and there it is.
I'm not looking for gakky arguments that fall apart as soon as you at them. As you point out, this argument is non-starter.
Ouze wrote: Since straight marriage is so much more common, it's rare that anyone should ask me, "how do you feel about straight people getting married"; but I assure you my answer would be the same: that marriage is a private covenant between two consenting adults and does not require government participation.
Do you support expanding marriage to gays? Your position on marriage is completely unrealistic and nonsensical, so it's not even an option under consideration nor will it ever be. So my question is: Given that straight people will continue to be allowed to marry and gain all the benefits of marriage, and given that taking state recognition of marriage from straight people is not a viable option, do you continue to oppose expanding the franchise to include gays?
Because as I said, refusing to expand the franchise to include gays on the grounds that straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married either is an intellectually dishonest argument. The consequences of acting on such a position are that straight people continue to enjoy marriage rights and gay people don't, and pretending the consequences are otherwise is disingenuous..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.... Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral?
Yes, that makes you a bigot. A bigot is a person who believes that people like themselves are inherently superior to people not like themselves. If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then you necessarily believe that heterosexuality is superior -- unless you want to make the utterly ridiculous claim that you don't believe being moral is superior to being immoral. That would be an absurd position to take.
The belief that homosexuality is immoral is itself an example of homophobia. There is no rational argument to support the position that homosexuality is immoral. Homosexuality in-of-itself harms no one, and a preference for members of the same sex over members of the opposite sex is no more moral or immoral than a preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate, or a preference for metal over hip-hop. Morality certainly can come into play in relationships, and there are immoral ways to treat partners (rape, abuse, etc.) but those are all separate from the issue of the morality of homosexuality.
When you say its immoral, I would suggest that what you mean is that you find it gross or icky. This is not a rational position, but rather a position rooted in fear and ignorance. Hence, homophobia.
I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it.
That's fine if you call that your "opinion" and you would be wrong. It is not abnormal, nor is it deviant. By labeling homosexuality as "abnormal and/or deviant" and then placing in a category that includes sexual fetishes (most of which are not abnormal or deviant and are merely one of the myriad of ways to explore the human sexual experience) you are then telling a gay person that they just think "incorrectly" which flies in the face of what is known about human homosexuality; it is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality.
The other troubling aspect of your views of homosexuality is you since you place with things you find "dirty" or "immoral," you are now positioning yourself above that person, marginalizing their existence because they aren't as "good" or as "pure" as someone with you upstanding morals.
Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral?
Yes.
What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.
Bigotry is not only defined on how you act towards people, but in also in how you view them.
Having an opinion isn't what makes one a bigot. It's being intolerant of others that have a different opinion. In fact, an example of bigotry would be to attack religion and religious people for believing that homosexuality is immoral. Being intolerant of religion is much more politically correct than being intolerant of homosexuality in the USA today.
No, you and people like you like to play up the paradox of intolerance, which is to say that a truly tolerant person should tolerate everything, no matter what.
It is utter crap.
The reason is when you try to legislate using your intolerance by, for example, outlawing a marriage between two consenting adults. That kind of intolerance is not justified because it is now imposing on the liberty of citizens. We allow the KKK to have rallies and hold meetings (as long as they are peaceful) without repercussions from the government because it is a guaranteed right in this country, just like it is the right for you to say what you want about homosexuals without the fear of the government coming to your house and arresting you. However, legislating through the lens of racism or homophobia cannot be tolerated in a just society. Besides, the "attacking" of religions that claim homosexual is immoral is not actually attacking them. If your religion claims homosexuality is immoral, that's fine. Your church won't marry a gay couple, that's fine too; our freedom of religion allows that. It crosses the line in to "not fine" when churches pump money in to defeating ballot initiatives legalizing gay marriage (or as I like to call it, "marriage"). The right to religious liberty doesn't mean the right to impose what you believe on the minority.
The bottom line is this:
You want to claim that gays are an affront to Nature and a deviant stain on society? Fine.
You want to make anti-sodomy laws and tell who is allowed to marry who? Nope.
In fact, the idea that marriage equality is even on a ballot goes against the foundations of this country:
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
I would argue that there are way more bigoted comments in here than most people realize...
dereksatkinson wrote: I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.... Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral?
Yes, that makes you a bigot. A bigot is a person who believes that people like themselves are inherently superior to people not like themselves. If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then you necessarily believe that heterosexuality is superior -- unless you want to make the utterly ridiculous claim that you don't believe being moral is superior to being immoral. That would be an absurd position to take.
Umm actually there is nothing about morality that suggests superior/inferior. You have your definitions mixed up. I already provided the definition of bigotry and you are throwing that term around pretty damn loosely.
immoral means..
not conforming to accepted standards of morality
Morality means..
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
Morality is a system of values and principles of conduct.. Think about that for one moment.. Every single person has a variance in what they believe to be right and wrong.
friendlycommissar wrote: When you say its immoral, I would suggest that what you mean is that you find it gross or icky. This is not a rational position, but rather a position rooted in fear and ignorance. Hence, homophobia.
Homophobia means..
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality
I do not fear or discriminate against homosexuality. I consider it a form of sexual deviance and it has no basis on how I view the value of an individual. All that sexual deviance is that it's different from societal norms which it most certainly is. In fact, by being unwilling to accept that people's beliefs can deviate from your own and actively trying to say that no one else is entitled to their own opinion, you are displaying a textbook case of bigotry. Heterosexuals do not have to accept homosexuality as "right" any more than homosexuals have to accept heterosexuals as "right". Morality is extremely subjective and intolerance of the morality of others is 100% bigotry.
When it comes to medical classifications, it most certainly is. There are currently 549 paraphilias. Don't think homosexuality is being singled out because sexual deviance is widespread and not really all that big of a deal. You are being defensive when there is no need to be.
I am tolerant of your point of view.. it's very disappointing that you are unable to be tolerant of someone's opinion that differs from your own.
dereksatkinson wrote: Umm actually there is nothing about morality that suggests superior/inferior.
That is an utterly ridiculous assertion. That which is moral is superior to that which is immoral. This is so obvious and integral to the very concept of morality that to claim otherwise is absurd. When you find yourself arguing that " there is nothing about morality that suggests superior/inferior" it's time to stop, step back from the keyboard, and completely re-asses your entire worldview.
Morality is a system of values and principles of conduct.. Think about that for one moment.. Every single person has a variance in what they believe to be right and wrong.
Yes, but there are no people who think that what is right is not also superior to what is wrong. That would be absurd. To say it is right to do X and wrong to do Y is to say that X is better than Y. To argue otherwise is to be completely irrational and enter a world where up is down, left is right, black is white and evil is good. You enter a realm where no sense can be made.
Crablezworth wrote: Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.
Exactly. Which it is... That is what tolerance is about. It's not about agreeing with people when it's convenient for you. It's about being able to accept views that are not your own that you find offensive.
Tolerance is..
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with
Bigotry is...
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Crablezworth wrote: Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.
Yes, but that's not actually relevant.
Person A and Person B may think different things are right and wrong, but both Person A and Person B will agree that what is wrong is bad and what is right is good. This is essentially tautological -- what is right is what is good. We might disagree on what is right, but anyone who claims that what they believe is right is not also good, and that what is wrong is not also bad, then you really can't have a meaningful conversation with that person. They're speaking gibberish.
You can't say that homosexuality is immoral and then turn around and claim you aren't saying it's unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; all of which are synonyms for immoral.
When it comes to medical classifications, it most certainly is. There are currently 549 paraphilias. Don't think homosexuality is being singled out because sexual deviance is widespread and not really all that big of a deal. You are being defensive when there is no need to be.
I am tolerant of your point of view.. it's very disappointing that you are unable to be tolerant of someone's opinion that differs from your own.
Trying to use the paradox of in tolerance as a way to explain your bigotry is intellectually dishonest. It also makes you look like a fool. You cannot explain your point in any other way than, "You don't tolerate what I think dude!"
Besides, if you are going to try and sound smart and bring up medical classifications and paraphilias, you should understand homosexuality had been removed from the DSM in 1974 by the American Psychiatric Association (the largest association in the world). It isn't a mental disorder nor a sexual deviancy, it is well understood to be a normal variation of human sexuality. Typically, the only psychologists or psychiatrist who still try to classify homosexual as a sexual deviancy are the ones who are religious fundamentalists and are employed by far-right funded think tanks.
You are using your "Eww, that's icky!" feelings to try and legislate the rights of minority which is in stark contrast of the core principal of our Republic: liberty.
Crablezworth wrote: Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.
Exactly. Which it is... That is what tolerance is about. It's not about agreeing with people when it's convenient for you. It's about being able to accept views that are not your own that you find offensive.
Tolerance is..
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with
Bigotry is...
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Google it... Use the words correctly.
I think dereksatkinson and people like him who make the "true tolerance means tolerating my intolerance" argument should be exiled from the internet and general society, sent to a labor camp, and worked to death. I and my friends are going to form a political action committee and raise money to support politicians who will help us realize this goal. Anyone who opposes us in this goal -- especially dereksatkinson -- is a bigot and should learn to be more tolerant of others.
EDIT: In case it's not obvious, I am satirizing derek's position. I don't really want to work him to death in a camp.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Trying to use the paradox of in tolerance as a way to explain your bigotry is intellectually dishonest. It also makes you look like a fool. You cannot explain your point in any other way than, "You don't tolerate what I think dude!"
It's not a paradox. It's called being consistent. If I find someone's belief's offensive, I don't have to like it. I don't expect you to understand (because you clearly don't understand the concept) but there is a major difference between tolerance and acceptance. You are trying to force acceptance of your beliefs on other people and I don't agree with that on principle.
I think dereksatkinson and people like him who make the "true tolerance means tolerating my intolerance" argument should be exiled from the internet and general society, sent to a labor camp, and worked to death. I and my friends are going to form a political action committee and raise money to support politicians who will help us realize this goal. Anyone who opposes us in this goal -- especially dereksatkinson -- is a bigot and should learn to be more tolerant of others.
Good luck with that. At least you are owning up to how you are actually authoritarian and can't tolerate the views that are different from your own. Gold star
You can't say that homosexuality is immoral and then turn around and claim you aren't saying it's unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; all of which are synonyms for immoral.
So when I say theft is immoral i'm actually saying it's promiscuous? LOL context matters kiddo.
I think dereksatkinson and people like him who make the "true tolerance means tolerating my intolerance" argument should be exiled from the internet and general society, sent to a labor camp, and worked to death. I and my friends are going to form a political action committee and raise money to support politicians who will help us realize this goal. Anyone who opposes us in this goal -- especially dereksatkinson -- is a bigot and should learn to be more tolerant of others.
Good luck with that. At least you are owning up to how you are actually authoritarian and can't tolerate the views that are different from your own. Gold star
There's only one person in this conversation who is actually and sincerely defending using the power of the state to deny people fundamental rights because he does not tolerate their difference. That person is you. If you want to define authoritarian in that way, then you just called yourself an authoritarian.
You can't say that homosexuality is immoral and then turn around and claim you aren't saying it's unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; all of which are synonyms for immoral.
So when I say theft is immoral i'm actually saying it's promiscuous? LOL context matters kiddo.
Obviously not every synonym is going to apply in every context, but being pedantic doesn't make your position any less ridiculous. Those words are synonyms, and thus similar in meaning but not exactly the same. It is completely disingenuous to pretend that calling something immoral is not a negative value judgement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: One thing on taxes: tax advantages for married couples is a relic of the past. It made sense back then when a marriage was guaranteed to have numerous children growing up in a stable environment. The concept of marriage has changed a lot and lost most of its former value thus shouldn't be a reason for lower taxes. Actual parents, whether married or not, should get bonuses for giving birth to a child instead of just blandly handing those out to random people marrying each other.
Married, childless couples that both work tend to suffer a tax penalty for being married. The couples that gain the most tax benefit from marriage are traditional one working parent, one stay-at-home parent. So in most cases the issue you raise is not actually an issue -- people who are marrying for reasons other than child-rearing do not get subsidized, while couples marrying in order to provide a stable home for children do get subsidized.
If immoral is good why are morals good?
If immoral is good why is it you are against samesex marriage.
If immoral is bad then you do think samesex marriage is bad.
But why do you think it's immoral?
When it comes to medical classifications, it most certainly is. There are currently 549 paraphilias. Don't think homosexuality is being singled out because sexual deviance is widespread and not really all that big of a deal. You are being defensive when there is no need to be.
I am tolerant of your point of view.. it's very disappointing that you are unable to be tolerant of someone's opinion that differs from your own.
Trying to use the paradox of in tolerance as a way to explain your bigotry is intellectually dishonest. It also makes you look like a fool. You cannot explain your point in any other way than, "You don't tolerate what I think dude!"
Besides, if you are going to try and sound smart and bring up medical classifications and paraphilias, you should understand homosexuality had been removed from the DSM in 1974 by the American Psychiatric Association (the largest association in the world). It isn't a mental disorder nor a sexual deviancy, it is well understood to be a normal variation of human sexuality. Typically, the only psychologists or psychiatrist who still try to classify homosexual as a sexual deviancy are the ones who are religious fundamentalists and are employed by far-right funded think tanks.
You are using your "Eww, that's icky!" feelings to try and legislate the rights of minority which is in stark contrast of the core principal of our Republic: liberty.
Try again, friend.
Ya know, this may be one of the few times where I have agreed with Scotty on this site....
As others have said, Marriage ultimately comes down to the people directly involved (ie, the actual couple). Personally, the State shouldn't be allowed to call their licenses a "Marriage License" because it still drags up those old-timey feelings in the less open minded of people. Obviously the people are still going to say they're married, because to them, they are (whether some overly religious zealot type says, "You're gay, you cant be married because God said so!" tries to say otherwise or not).
Married, childless couples that both work tend to suffer a tax penalty for being married. The couples that gain the most tax benefit from marriage are traditional one working parent, one stay-at-home parent. So in most cases the issue you raise is not actually an issue -- people who are marrying for reasons other than child-rearing do not get subsidized, while couples marrying in order to provide a stable home for children do get subsidized.
Check my flag. DakkaDakka is an international forum.
And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.
Actually, during the Late-Middle Ages is when marriage became a "religious" thing. It originally started out as a power play.... It used to be, especially among the nobility, that marriages were used to unite two houses, expand land borders, secure peace treaties, etc. Along came this idea that kings/queens had a "Divine Right" to be the king/queen. So someone got it in there head, that they would get the local priest to say that God had condoned/blessed the union, and therefore secured the divinity of this "Right". Pretty soon, minor lordlings, knights and just about anyone who could claim to be a noble was doing the same thing. Eventually, the Church (since at this time there was still really only the one kind) realized that they were sitting on a great racket, and they began sort of, charging for the service of a wedding to create "holy matrimony".... That was all starting round the 1200s or so. Eventually arriving to a point where every wedding *had* to be performed at the local church by a priest, or else it was viewed as being a sacrilege.
Fast forward a bit, and now the Church has a bit less "power" but the State now realizes that the church has had sole domain of this racket, and creates a marriage license, thus creating their own racket (as well as jumping in on the one the church has had for a few hundred years). So really, in the whole of human history, the idea that a marriage is religious actually IS pretty recent, given the length of time we're discussing.
Are you saying that all the records of people being married in religious ceromonies thousands of years before the late middle ages are false? I ask because it seems you are saying there was no such thing as religion sanctioned marriage until then, and it was solely for purposes of power.
I am surprised that this thread has made it this far.
As for my own 2 pennies worth, I have no idea why goverments are still thinking that same sex marriage is a bad thing. Its perfectly fine with me.
master of ordinance wrote: I am surprised that this thread has made it this far.
As for my own 2 pennies worth, I have no idea why goverments are still thinking that same sex marriage is a bad thing. Its perfectly fine with me.
It's seemed fairly civil, outside of a couple of incidents, which considering the nature of the topic, is indeed amazing. Kudos to all on both sides for not getting all uptight.
Are you saying that all the records of people being married in religious ceromonies thousands of years before the late middle ages are false? I ask because it seems you are saying there was no such thing as religion sanctioned marriage until then, and it was solely for purposes of power.
They certainly did happen, but when you read of many of those types of marriages, they are powerful/famous people in some way during their time. Rarely have I read of the "common man" getting a religiously sanctioned wedding done, by a priest. I mean Romeo/Juliet didn't say, "we want to get married, so we need to go to [Freya's, Apollo's, Flying Spaghetti Monster's] temple so that it's a right and proper wedding"
And if you look at some of the power struggles, particularly in France when there were 'two' Popes, the Church certainly put pressure on the kings and other nobility to say, "God won't recognize your marriage, and you'll go to hell for intercourse out of wedlock, unless you pay one of my priests to do the ceremony"
Ultimately, it became both a power play, as well as a money grabbing scheme enacted by the Clergy and Nobility of the middle ages.
dereksatkinson wrote: From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.
I would love to hear your explanation for how homosexuality is immoral, without resorting to "because Jesus said so". It's been too long since I've had the pleasure of humiliating someone who dared to make such a horrible argument.
dereksatkinson wrote: That is NOT what I've argued. In principle, the state simply shouldn't care. If two brothers live in the same household and support eachother they should be able to file a joint tax return.
A household is more than multiple people living under the same roof. It's, or more accuratly it was, the basic social unit the government had to advantage in order to gain a maximum output of newborns.
From the government perspective, it shouldn't matter who you are plowing.
Everything is political.
The REAL question is whether or not the way the government regulates this is right.
That may be the question that interests you, but it's no more an appropriate question then that of OP. Knowing why so many non-religious individuals display homophobic behaviours is perfectly relevant.
dereksatkinson wrote: From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.
Abnormal and deviant are synonymous. Also, be prepared to be lambasted at the very first sign of a naturalistic fallacy.
if you want to move in with your brother you can always file "head of household" as long as he doesn't make any money. That's the "non-married live with somebody" eqvivalent of filing "married", but the main downside is that it compares to the "married, and the wife doesn't work and stays at home like a good woman" standards of yesteryear.
There is not a "living together, filing jointly" equivalent yet, and I don't know if that is something that is going to happen.
Relapse wrote: Are you saying that all the records of people being married in religious ceromonies thousands of years before the late middle ages are false? I ask because it seems you are saying there was no such thing as religion sanctioned marriage until then, and it was solely for purposes of power.
I suspect that some people are talking about Christian marriage and equating it to religion as a whole...
Which isn't that unreasonable a stance in western countries where Christians still outnumber most other religions... but is also what makes the argument that marriage should be a religious thing between a man and a woman such a silly one. Christians were getting married in legal civil ceremonies with narry a priest in sight long before they started getting the church involved.
There have certainly been religious ceremonies happening to wed couples from other religions for a much longer time. But from what I've seen so far, it's mostly the Christians who are making the big noises against same sex marriage, so it's their views that tend to be bandied about.
Relapse wrote: Are you saying that all the records of people being married in religious ceromonies thousands of years before the late middle ages are false? I ask because it seems you are saying there was no such thing as religion sanctioned marriage until then, and it was solely for purposes of power.
I suspect that some people are talking about Christian marriage and equating it to religion as a whole...
Which isn't that unreasonable a stance in western countries where Christians still outnumber most other religions... but is also what makes the argument that marriage should be a religious thing between a man and a woman such a silly one. Christians were getting married in legal civil ceremonies with narry a priest in sight long before they started getting the church involved.
There have certainly been religious ceremonies happening to wed couples from other religions for a much longer time. But from what I've seen so far, it's mostly the Christians who are making the big noises against same sex marriage, so it's their views that tend to be bandied about.
Ah, I see what you mean. I was indeed thinking of all the various rituals of other belief systems as well as Christian.
friendlycommissar wrote: So, given that - is there an argument against gay marriage that is not founded on either a religious belief about the immorality of homosexual relations (or a unexamined, knee-jerk and immature "two guys kissing? eew! gross!" reaction)? I have never heard of any such argument.
The other argument is that the state has an interest in perpetuating itself and so has a bias towards recognizing marriages that will produce offspring.
It's a gakky argument, obviously, since plenty of couple marry and don't have kids, or people who have had hysterectomies or vasectomies or are just barren or whatever still get married, but you asked and there it is.
friendlycommissar wrote: I'm not looking for gakky arguments that fall apart as soon as you at them. As you point out, this argument is non-starter.
You asked for an argument not based in religion, I provided one, and now you're saying "well, a better arument". You're moving the goalposts, I answered the question as you asked it. Stop playing calvinball.
friendlycommissar wrote: Do you support expanding marriage to gays? Your position on marriage is completely unrealistic and nonsensical, so it's not even an option under consideration nor will it ever be. So my question is: Given that straight people will continue to be allowed to marry and gain all the benefits of marriage, and given that taking state recognition of marriage from straight people is not a viable option, do you continue to oppose expanding the franchise to include gays?
Because as I said, refusing to expand the franchise to include gays on the grounds that straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married either is an intellectually dishonest argument. The consequences of acting on such a position are that straight people continue to enjoy marriage rights and gay people don't, and pretending the consequences are otherwise is disingenuous..
It doesn't seem like you actually need my answer, because you seem to have provided your opinion of what mine is and then told me I was intellectually dishonest for having it. It doesn't seem like you've left a role for me in this debate between what you think I'd say and why what you think what I might say is wrong. So, have fun I guess.
cincydooley wrote: I've had responses that would have put this cock deep in the discussion three times now. I've not posted a single one.
I think I'm learning.
I'll be damned.
Not participating isn't the answer.
I kinda want to know, do you, Ouze or Derek believe that the governmental legislation of marriage is a recent, liberal trend, or do you otherwise think that the almost constant historical trend of governments honouring the parents of families with material and legal rewards is, equally an almost constant history of dangerous oversteps?
Kovnik Obama wrote: I kinda want to know, do you, Ouze or Derek believe that the governmental legislation of marriage is a recent, liberal trend, or do you otherwise think that the almost constant historical trend of governments honouring the parents of families with material and legal rewards is, equally an almost constant history of dangerous oversteps?
I don't know that I'd consider it to be a dangerous overstep, per se; and I know it's not recent (well, I mean "recent" is sort of flexible, but lets go with the history of the US for this example). When I say that I would like there to be no state role in marriage, I didn't say that "I don't think straight people should be allowed to get married either"; as someone pretended I said. What I mean is that the government has no right to authorize or withhold a marriage between consenting adults. I'd ideally like the tax code to be revised to provide neither benefit nor penalty based upon marital status, for all marriage to be a private contract between two people and the government's role to be seriously reduced to essentially being a register of marriages which have occurred which can be used for probate purposes.
That's my ideal solution; but it's impractical. My practical solution is supporting gay marriage as an equal right under the 14th amendment because that is a more workable goal, for now.
cincydooley wrote: I've had responses that would have put this cock deep in the discussion three times now. I've not posted a single one.
I think I'm learning.
I'll be damned.
Not participating isn't the answer.
I kinda want to know, do you, Ouze or Derek believe that the governmental legislation of marriage is a recent, liberal trend, or do you otherwise think that the almost constant historical trend of governments honouring the parents of families with material and legal rewards is, equally an almost constant history of dangerous oversteps?
I don't think it's a liberal trend; I think it's obviously at the forefront now than, say, in the 1960s because there is more....vocal desire?.... For gays to get married. To me not granting people equal protection under the law is a dangerous trend, and it's one that, for this issue, is "caught up" on the word marriage. And yes, it's really only a problem for the far right because they want to "claim" the word marriage. Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
The important thing here is legal protection, yes? If so, call all "marriages" civil unions or civil contracts, treat them as any business partnership, and leave the notion of marriage to the individual and whatever cult, church, coven, etc they want to perform a ceremony, if any. That allows Christians to maintain their spiritual covenant on their own time and dime and any other religion to do the same (forgive me, I'm not familiar with the specifics) while having nothing to do with their protection under the law.
I do find it curious, your earlier comment, about the "output of newborns". Can you elaborate on that?
Ouze wrote: I'd ideally like the tax code to be revised to provide neither benefit nor penalty based upon marital status, for all marriage to be a private contract between two people and the government's role to be seriously reduced to essentially being a register of marriages which have occurred which can be used for probate purposes.
Don't you think that it could be dangerous to leave marriage contracts in the hands of private laws? Seems to me that this would allow very abusive situations to occur whenever a party in favour of general deregulation or laissez-faire came to power....?
That's my ideal solution; but it's impractical. My practical solution is supporting gay marriage as an equal right under the 14th amendment because that is a more workable goal, for now.
I essentially agree with you, except over the fact that marriage can eventually be abandonned. In my humble opinion, marriage answers a psychological need/opportunity felt by many parents, and that's too much of an easy point to play on, for too large of a section of the population, for political actors to agree and all give it up.
cincydooley wrote: Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
Why should we give the religious right any concessions instead of just telling them to STFU and stop being repulsive bigots? There might have been a practical argument in the past, that re-naming marriage is a necessary change to get gay "marriage" approved, but now that the trend is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage becoming the nation-wide standard in the near future I think that argument is a lot weaker.
cincydooley wrote: Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
The important thing here is legal protection, yes? If so, call all "marriages" civil unions or civil contracts, treat them as any business partnership, and leave the notion of marriage to the individual and whatever cult, church, coven, etc they want to perform a ceremony, if any. That allows Christians to maintain their spiritual covenant on their own time and dime and any other religion to do the same (forgive me, I'm not familiar with the specifics) while having nothing to do with their protection under the law.
I think this would be about "right"... However, I realize, and I think most of us here realize that the Government is not going to let go of that cash stream (yeah, it accounts for a tiny drop in the bucket, but when many states are operating in a deficit, they arent going to relinquish any of their revenue sources), and so they should change the wording to be some form of "union", be it civil or whatever. This way, they still can get people qualifying for the "tax breaks" without the religious nutters going all crazy about how "holy" marriage is, and ultimately it leaves that term "marriage" open for those who want to say they are married (which, is probably everyone who gets married straight or otherwise)
cincydooley wrote: Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
Why should we give the religious right any concessions instead of just telling them to STFU and stop being repulsive bigots? There might have been a practical argument in the past, that re-naming marriage is a necessary change to get gay "marriage" approved, but now that the trend is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage becoming the nation-wide standard in the near future I think that argument is a lot weaker.
How is it a concession? It's removing it legally from everyone.
I can have a marriage ceremony at a church without having the legal documentation to back it up. Anyone can.
cincydooley wrote: I do find it curious, your earlier comment, about the "output of newborns". Can you elaborate on that?
Individuals have value for their governments. Schemes to encourage larger birth rates have been used constantly in history, and women were constant spoils of war. In a war, a larger population allows you, very simply, to outspend your opponent, so states always had a fairly well recognized incentive to breed their own people.
cincydooley wrote: How is it a concession? It's removing it legally from everyone.
It's a concession because the only reason to change "marriage" to "civil union" or whatever is to appease the repulsive bigots who can't stand the thought of all those icky gay couples getting the same "marriage" title as Good Christians. It accomplishes nothing of any practical value to anyone, it just lets the bigots have a symbolic victory to make them feel better. And I see no reason to let people like that have anything.
I can have a marriage ceremony at a church without having the legal documentation to back it up. Anyone can.
Yes, of course you can. But what does that have to do with anything?
Also, I think it's awfully unfair to call anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots or nutters.
You're right, it's not. But the forum rules prevent me from calling them what they deserve, so I guess I'll have to be unreasonably kind to them.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: and so they should change the wording to be some form of "union", be it civil or whatever. This way, they still can get people qualifying for the "tax breaks" without the religious nutters going all crazy about how "holy" marriage is, and ultimately it leaves that term "marriage" open for those who want to say they are married (which, is probably everyone who gets married straight or otherwise)
To me that just ends up with the "I will rarther burn marriage to the ground and take it avay from everybody before I let the gays get married" feeling, and feels like you still let the anti-same sex marriage guys "win". I know that is not the intention though, but the feeling will be there. I do think this is one of those times where the actual word is important. Same-sex couples want the actual word (and the legal, societal, and emotional status that comes with it) for the same reasons that anti-same sex marriage folks don't want them to have it.
Because it's the word, as much as what it provides, that is so important to both parties.
I think the vast majority of the people posting in favor of the "just call it union" argument in this thread don't want to deny the word to same-sex couples, I think you guys just want to see peace and get this settled and don't have any bad intentions when you make that argument. (Just to clear that up )
cincydooley wrote: Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
Why should we give the religious right any concessions instead of just telling them to STFU and stop being repulsive bigots? There might have been a practical argument in the past, that re-naming marriage is a necessary change to get gay "marriage" approved, but now that the trend is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage becoming the nation-wide standard in the near future I think that argument is a lot weaker.
How is it a concession? It's removing it legally from everyone.
Yes, of course you can. But what does that have to do with anything?
I'd contend sort of a lot. If one can have their marriage without any legal benefit, then what does it matter what the legal name of it is?
You're right, it's not. But the forum rules prevent me from calling them what they deserve, so I guess I'll have to be unreasonably kind to them.
What do they deserve? I'm sorry, but i just can't agree with you there. People are allowed to be repulsed things. You don't get to call them a bigot simply because they're repulsed by different things than you.
I think the vast majority of the people posting in favor of the "just call it union" argument in this thread don't want to deny the word to same-sex couples, I think you guys just want to see peace and get this settled and don't have any bad intentions when you make that argument. (Just to clear that up )
.
I'd agree with that. But more so, because it's just a fething word, I'd rather get them the rights theyre entitled to. If it's at the expense of a word that I don't think should be dictated by the government in the first place, then by all means get rid of the word.
I guess you could also be a bigot and still be kind to people? I would probably fall under that category, where I am very mixed on things.
I have my religious view on things, such as gay marriage. But what I think is right or wrong is just what I think is right or wrong. So in that regards I guess I would also be a bigot.
But what I think is right or wrong based on my religious has zero bearing on what I think the law should be.
I do think that my church should be able to decide what kind of ceremony they get to hold inside the church and what kind of weddings our preacher will officiate over. If the church want to say "we will not officiate a same-sex marriage" then they shouldn't be forced to. But just because my church doesn't want to marry same-sex people doesn't mean that they shouldn't legally be allowed to be married and get the benefits of marriage.
Am I still a bigot for thinking something even if I advocate for the people I am bigoted against?
cincydooley wrote: I'd contend sort of a lot. If one can have their marriage without any legal benefit, then what does it matter what the legal name of it is?
What if we change your driver's license to a " card"? It will still let you drive your car, you'll just have to carry around a humiliating obscene title. Names matter.
What do they deserve?
To drown in a puddle of their own tears as society changes around them, and they're shunned by everyone else like the KKK is now.
People are allowed to be repulsed things. You don't get to call them a bigot simply because they're repulsed by different things than you.
I think you're having some confusion with the concept of being a bigot. This is like saying that I can't call someone a racist, just because they look down on different people than I do.
But more so, because it's just a fething word, I'd rather get them the rights theyre entitled to. If it's at the expense of a word that I don't think should be dictated by the government in the first place, then by all means get rid of the word.
Like I said, that might have been a stronger argument ten years ago, when gay marriage was in doubt. Now that it's pretty much inevitable and the courts have consistently thrown out gay marriage bans it's a lot less reasonable to suggest that we give the repulsive bigots a symbolic victory just so we can be nice to them.
I think the vast majority of the people posting in favor of the "just call it union" argument in this thread don't want to deny the word to same-sex couples, I think you guys just want to see peace and get this settled and don't have any bad intentions when you make that argument. (Just to clear that up )
.
I'd agree with that. But more so, because it's just a fething word, I'd rather get them the rights theyre entitled to. If it's at the expense of a word that I don't think should be dictated by the government in the first place, then by all means get rid of the word.
I would also imagine that a large portion (maybe a majority) of same-sex couples might not care about the actual word either. There are just passionate groups on both sides going "I'm not letting you gay up our sacred covenant, no marriage for anyone if I have to let you get gay married" and "it has to be the exact equal to what straight people have always had, don't get rid of the 1st class version and make a 2nd class version for everybody that is left now".
The compromise crowd is there (although I will admit that I am in the camp that thinks it would be a lopsided compromise), but the passion on both sides will be the delay.
What if we change your driver's license to a " card"? It will still let you drive your car, you'll just have to carry around a humiliating obscene title. Names matter.
But everyone says the same thing and it allows me to still drive? The who the feth cares?
To drown in a puddle of their own tears as society changes around them, and they're shunned by everyone else like the KKK is now.
We are just going to have to disagree on this one.
I think you're having some confusion with the concept of being a bigot. This is like saying that I can't call someone a racist, just because they look down on different people than I do.
No. I have a pretty clear understanding. I am bigoted toward fat women that wear yoga pants. I don't want to be around them at all and I hate them. I have a very catholic friend that was in my wedding that believes homosexuality is a sin and has a gay brother In law that he gets along with just fine.
The problems that the word bigoted has been so distorted by the media due to its free use that it's seldom used correctly anymore.
Donald Sterling? Clearly not bigoted toward blacks. Doesn't prevent the media from calling him one.
d-usa wrote: I do think that my church should be able to decide what kind of ceremony they get to hold inside the church and what kind of weddings our preacher will officiate over. If the church want to say "we will not officiate a same-sex marriage" then they shouldn't be forced to. But just because my church doesn't want to marry same-sex people doesn't mean that they shouldn't legally be allowed to be married and get the benefits of marriage.
This depends on how exactly the religious official gets their power to perform marriages. If it's just a ceremony with no legal meaning and you still have to go submit the paperwork at the courthouse then there's no problem here. If the religious officials are acting as a representative of the government then it's a problem.
Am I still a bigot for thinking something even if I advocate for the people I am bigoted against?
There were plenty of racists who did things (in a very condescending way) for the people they were racist against. You're certainly better than people who have anti-gay beliefs and work to take rights away from gay people, but your beliefs are still inexcusable.
d-usa wrote: I do think that my church should be able to decide what kind of ceremony they get to hold inside the church and what kind of weddings our preacher will officiate over. If the church want to say "we will not officiate a same-sex marriage" then they shouldn't be forced to. But just because my church doesn't want to marry same-sex people doesn't mean that they shouldn't legally be allowed to be married and get the benefits of marriage.
This depends on how exactly the religious official gets their power to perform marriages. If it's just a ceremony with no legal meaning and you still have to go submit the paperwork at the courthouse then there's no problem here. If the religious officials are acting as a representative of the government then it's a problem.
Honestly, I think there is a bit of a double standard here... Many of the ministers that I know or knew growing up *had* to get a license or whatever that allowed them to be the signing authority on a marriage license (honestly, I've no idea how though). So of course, because they are religious clergy they are afforded a sort of buffer to refuse service to people based on orientation that a civil judge does not.
On the one hand, I get it, and kinda feel that, as a private institution, churches should still retain that ability to refuse marriage ceremonies on the grounds that it does violate many of their religious beliefs.
On the other, Im getting sick of the religious BS, and kinda wish it'd disappear. Organized religion is one of the worst ideas that humanity has ever had.
cincydooley wrote:Also, I think it's awfully unfair to call anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots or nutters.
It is unfair to call people who disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots, though its often fairly easy to call them hypocrites. However, the religious justifications given to oppose gay marriage are based in homophobia, or at least the common interpretations of them are. The passages that Christians point to in order to condemn homosexuality, and thus gay marriage, are deeply disturbing and hateful. The old testament calls for killing homosexuals by beating them to death with rocks, which is fairly ghastly and inhumane, and the only passage in the entire New Testament that even mentions homosexuals lumps them in with murderers and thieves, which is just ludicrous.
People -- good, decent people -- who are raised in a religious faith and mostly see the positive aspects of that faith (sense of community, sense of justice, etc.) can get extremely defensive when its pointed out that their religious texts contain some ideas that no sane modern person would agree with, and cognitive dissonance can kick in and lead to people being in deep denial about the nature of the idea they are promoting. That said, a religious person can still be held responsible for being a rational person, and should be able to recognize that denying rights to gay people on the basis of their religious belief is unjustifiable.
I think from a religious standpoint the argument against gay marriage is pretty straightforward. It is not part of their made up belief system (full stop). This does make me question what motivates gay people to want to be married before a god who allegedly considers them an abomination. It is a bit like black people joining the KKK. They could do it, but why would they want to? It just sounds like trolling.
As I'm all in favour of trolling the KKK and the Catholic Church, I'm also very much in favour of gay marriage.
However in all seriousness, it is a somewhat private group; they should be able to dictate their own customs, and their custom is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't think this is necessarily discriminatory because gay people can still get married within the organization. So long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman (what's the issue?). If you really had your heart set on same sex marriages then perhaps Catholicism is not for you.
However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony. And if people want to call civil unions marriages then I don't see who that hurts.
Smacks wrote: However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony. And if people want to call civil unions marriages then I don't see who that hurts.
Man. The western world's really going to suck in about thirty years.
However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony.
Seriously?
That's pretty absurd if you ask me. As a "somewhat private group" they should be able to deny whomever they want to the ability to use their facilities.
Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.
d-usa wrote: Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.
Maybe. The first thing I thought of was that forcing them to do that would be a strong case for a violation of the 4th amendment.
d-usa wrote: Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.
Maybe. The first thing I thought of was that forcing them to do that would be a strong case for a violation of the 4th amendment.
Just out of curiosity, how would that be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
cincydooley wrote: It could be argued that forcing a church to perform a ceremony they did not want to would be akin to a seizure of property.
Yeah... no.
Renting of private property is not seizure of property; not even close. The Fourth Amendment provides protection of the citizen against unreasonable search and seizure from entities of the Federal Government (and by extension, the States, through incorporation).
d-usa wrote: Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.
This isn't all that common in the US. The first, and really only "secular" organization that I can think of to use churches, is the Boy Scouts of America. But they tend to use Mormon churches, and they aren't Christians anyway, so no one really cares, until they try to push mormonism onto the poor kids who are stuck in Boy Scouts.
Now, As you are saying it's pretty common for churches to be rented out... How funny would it be to have Ghost and Behemoth and bands like them do a show at the cathedral in Cologne?
cincydooley wrote: And who would be forcing the churches to marry people they didn't want to? The government I presume?
You are confusing "renting out the church building to a private group" and "forcing a church to marry gay people."
I don't think churches in America should be forced to rent their buildings to anyone to perform any sort of marriage, unless it is ordained by the church itself. If they want to, that's fine, but it shouldn't be mandatory at all and they should have final say in the matter. Besides, there are plenty of other places to get married and if your particular religion doesn't recognize your marriage, find a new religion; there is no civil punishment for apostasy in America.
That being said, no one can force any church to perform a wedding ceremony on anyone, gay or straight. There is no one seriously pushing for that because it is totally unrealistic and runs contrary to religious liberty (it is just like the Catholic Church not allowing people who have been divorced to marry in the Church... it's stupid, but it is what they believe).
d-usa wrote: Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.
This isn't all that common in the US. The first, and really only "secular" organization that I can think of to use churches, is the Boy Scouts of America. But they tend to use Mormon churches, and they aren't Christians anyway, so no one really cares, until they try to push mormonism onto the poor kids who are stuck in Boy Scouts.
Now, As you are saying it's pretty common for churches to be rented out... How funny would it be to have Ghost and Behemoth and bands like them do a show at the cathedral in Cologne?
I am baffled by people seriously thinking that by renting a room / place you are allowed to do anything you want. That isn't how renting anything works...
The reasons you are not, are a whole other thread, so I'll just leave it at that, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
@Sigvatr. In regards to holding a wedding ceremony, if you are renting a church, which is a private space they can deny or accept who they want to marry. They're not a housing development so there's no "anti-discrimination" going on. Having the government come in and say, "Sorry Catholics, but if the gays want to use your church to get married, not only are we forcing you to let them use your building, but you have to use your priests and whatever else they need" is all kinds of wrong, because it violates their ability to pursue the 1st Amendment.
Sigvatr wrote: That is my point. If you rent a place, you don't own it. You don't make the rules of conduct.
But see, the "land lord" has to agree to the rental in the first place, and why the government can't force churches of any kind to open their doors to people who follow a lifestyle they don't agree with.
The reasons you are not, are a whole other thread, so I'll just leave it at that, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
@Sigvatr. In regards to holding a wedding ceremony, if you are renting a church, which is a private space they can deny or accept who they want to marry. They're not a housing development so there's no "anti-discrimination" going on. Having the government come in and say, "Sorry Catholics, but if the gays want to use your church to get married, not only are we forcing you to let them use your building, but you have to use your priests and whatever else they need" is all kinds of wrong, because it violates their ability to pursue the 1st Amendment.
dereksatkinson wrote: From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.
I would love to hear your explanation for how homosexuality is immoral, without resorting to "because Jesus said so". It's been too long since I've had the pleasure of humiliating someone who dared to make such a horrible argument.
Jesus actually said nothing about homosexuality, so even that falls apart. Let's just play devil's advocate here (a more ironic use of that phrase there's never been) and I'll actually try to give the religious and secular counter arguments.
I'm a christian, one who actually reads his bible to boot, and I don't really see the normally parrotted religious argument against homosexuality as valid. It's only really addressed twice, once during the laws of hygiene and diet Moses was laying down; where it's listed among other taboos such as eating shellfish and wearing gaudy clothes. It's mentioned only briefly in the later New Testament; in both cases it seems to be a matter of ensuring the survival of family bloodlines in a time when there were a lot less people around. I actually remember the advice "don't eat too much candy or drink too much booze, or you'll get a stomach ache" having more stress put on it in the scriptures than avoiding gayness. The fact that it's blown up to such a huge issue by evangelicals is baffling to me.
I think I've only heard two secular arguments that hold water. (While still not standing up to close scrutiny.) One is that the state should encourage the nuclear family as it is much better in raising children than alternate models. While it's true that stable households are much more nurturing the evidence for opposite sex couples raising more well adjusted children is practically nonexistent.
I think the only other argument I've heard is that since the majority of citizens are against it, it's undemocratic to have same sex marriage forcibly recognized. This argument shows a fundamental ignorance of law, as the US is (supposed to be at least) a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Civil rights are NOT up for debate; they are an intrinsic part of living here. (Again in theory.) The opposite point of view led to the civil war.
While I can't speak to other countries, in America any discussion of churches being forced to do anything is a spurious red herring. The debate over gay marriage has nothing to do with what happens in churches and is entirely an issue of secular law. Churches are always allowed to discriminate when it comes to whom they allow to use their facilities. Catholic churches typically only allow Catholic couples to wed, synagogues only allow Jewish couples, mosques only allow Muslims, etc. Gay marriage has been recognized in 17 states, and not a single church that condemns gay relationships has been forced to open its doors to gay weddings. Many churches, including Christian churches, have performed gay wedding ceremonies even in states where gay marriage is not recognized.
In America, you can currently marry anyone and anything. I once saw a man marry a horse on Jerry Springer. This woman married herself. There is nothing preventing gay people from having a wedding ceremony, exchanging vows, and becoming married. The only question is: Does the state recognize it as valid? Does the state allow the transfer of property tax-free at the time of death? Does the state recognize the guardianship of a partner in times of medical crises? Does a spouse eligible to be covered under their government-employed partner's health insurance? That's what is up for debate. Gay people were getting married long before it was legal recognized anywhere. The only issue is "does the state validate these marriages in the courts/matters of civil law," and if your position is anything other than "No, the state should not validate gay marriages in the courts/matters of civil law," then you're not actually against gay marriage.
It's frustrating seeing these debates get side-tracked into irrelevant issues like the right of churches to be homophobic. Nobody is challenging that.
However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony.
Seriously?
That's pretty absurd if you ask me. As a "somewhat private group" they should be able to deny whomever they want to the ability to use their facilities.
They should, but not based on race, religion, sexuality or other protected groups as that is clearly discrimination. I didn't say they should be forced to conduct the ceremony. All I'm saying is IF they rent out the building to the public for weddings then, like any other function room, they should not be allowed to discriminate. If gays or humanists or blacks or disabled people want to use the space then obviously they should be accommodated for.
However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony.
Seriously?
That's pretty absurd if you ask me. As a "somewhat private group" they should be able to deny whomever they want to the ability to use their facilities.
They should, but not based on race, religion, sexuality or other protected groups as that is clearly discrimination. I didn't say they should be forced to conduct the ceremony. All I'm saying is IF they rent out the building to the public for weddings then, like any other function room, they should not be allowed to discriminate. If gays or humanists or blacks or disabled people want to use the space then obviously they should be accommodated for.
In regards to 'weddings' you almost never actually 'rent' the church. You get to request to use the church by being a 'member' of the church in good standing (which means you have been up to date with your tithes) and you usually get the pastor or priest to agree to the ceremony and pay them a nominal fee. You then also pay any of the people who work the event like an organist and such.
So you can't force someone to officiate a wedding, and you can't force a church to let you use it for a marriage.
And discrimination happens every day and is perfectly legal. You are talking about protected classes and discrimination in very particular industries where there are explicit laws to protect specific protected classes from very specific types of discrimination. We have explicit laws on fair housing and employment.
But this is the crux of the issue which some groups are trying to use the 'gay marriage' debate to put an end to religious exemptions and try to have religions classified as hate groups. They want the wealth of religious groups taxed and confiscated for public use and for them to not be able to operate financially outside the current tax code and to be criminalized should they have views which are 'discriminatory'. Gay marriage isn't even the issue to them, just a weapon to use against religious organizations.
They should, but not based on race, religion, sexuality or other protected groups as that is clearly discrimination. I didn't say they should be forced to conduct the ceremony. All I'm saying is IF they rent out the building to the public for weddings then, like any other function room, they should not be allowed to discriminate. If gays or humanists or blacks or disabled people want to use the space then obviously they should be accommodated for.
It's not discrimination. You purposefully rent a building from an institution you know that it opposes your belief in some regards and then want to play the gay card? Sorry, but that's so far from credible...with the same logic, it would be okay to rent a mosque to hold a Christian mass?
Again: renting does NOT make a place your place. It is NOT your place. It's NOT you who makes the rules. The OWNER makes those. If you don't like that, don't rent a church. Build one. Buy an old one.
As an anthropology major and man of science and reason, two people of the same sex cannot successfully reproduce. Yes I get where people can adopt and artificially inseminate or get a man or woman to help them create a child, but in the grand scheme of the species survival, if we sent a bunch of homosexuals out into space to explore the vastness of the universe, we wouldn't make it to the closest star system before dying out. I'm not against it I'm not for it, it's just not my style, but I'm all for the survival of our species and if every man and woman were homosexual to the fullest extent where they refused to bang to preserve the species, we would cease to exist.
And don't mention those stupid lizards that died out but one pregnant female survived and birthed all females and they still somehow exist and are born pregnant or something, we're not freakin lizards.
I'm just sayin, if you're for intergalactic space travel, don't be gay. Otherwise do whatever the hell you want.
As for the whole religious aspect of it, you may or may not be able to choose to be gay, but you sure as hell have a choice in which religion you choose to follow. And there are plenty of them out there, plus in America anyway you can make up your own and get a tax break! But if you still choose to be Catholic or Christian or whatever, next time you go to church ask the people there if they bash you or treat you bad or look at you funny, What Would Jesus Do?
Boggy Man wrote:
I think I've only heard two secular arguments that hold water. (While still not standing up to close scrutiny.) One is that the state should encourage the nuclear family as it is much better in raising children than alternate models. While it's true that stable households are much more nurturing the evidence for opposite sex couples raising more well adjusted children is practically nonexistent.
I'm no expert, but I believe that this line of thinking is born from a hole as well... There is plenty of evidence to show that kids who come up in a single parent household have more "issues" in life than those who came up in households with 2 parents. Thing is, without criminal records, or mental health professionals talking about the number of people they see, we have no real basis for this argument, because well adjusted people, generally, don't seek mental health help, and they definitely, generally don't end up on criminal registries (by going to prison, or being convicted of crimes, etc). Of course there are going to be outliers from each side (one side being 1 parent, the other being 2), but I believe that, at least in the case of the outliers (for lack of a better term) that are successful from a 1 parent household generally gained a father/mother figure outside of the home. Notable examples of this are the numerous professional athletes in the US who grew up with only a mom. In interviews most of them express tremendous gratitude and place their School and College football coaches at a fatherly level. The coaches figuratively became a father to these guys. Conversely, the men that I was around in the army who were in similar situations were universally the ones that we had the most issues with. Whether we can put a name or term on what the exact role/mentoring that a male does for other males or not, I personally think that there are actually things that men cannot learn from living in a 1 mom, or 2 mom household; and vice-versa for girls growing up in a 1 dad or 2 dad household (though, at least on girls, I don't think it's as big an impact or difference as with boys lacking a father-figure)
All that said, I follow your argument that the gov't wants to keep the nuclear family alive, but I agree that, from a government point of view, they should be looking more to the stability of the house, not the combination of bits that the adult couple have.
any old man that is not conservative, has no brain
I hate that saying. as if people re supposed to follow a predetermined path of ideals
It's not so much a set or predetermined path of ideals, just that, most younger people are full of piss and vinegar, and want to change the world Right. Now. As they age and become wiser, some of their views may or may not change, but even the ones that don't change will probably become more accepted, come to pass and become more of the conservative ideal
nkelsch wrote: In regards to 'weddings' you almost never actually 'rent' the church. You get to request to use the church by being a 'member' of the church in good standing (which means you have been up to date with your tithes) and you usually get the pastor or priest to agree to the ceremony and pay them a nominal fee. You then also pay any of the people who work the event like an organist and such.
I know that they make it complicated, I've had a few friends who had to be baptized especially for their wedding, and attend church services for a few weeks before etc... Essentially jumping through the hoops. 'Personally' I consider this a religious vetting process and slightly offensive, it isn't something I would do (It's also a bit pointless, as I'm sure those people never went back after the wedding).
I know when my father died, he specified in his will that he wanted his funeral to be a humanist ceremony. I went to the undertaker and they had a list of local crematoriums (all of which had chapels), and a list of people who would conduct the funeral in different faiths. I picked the ones I wanted, paid my money and that was that.
Obviously I couldn't have specified that I wanted a priest to conduct a humanist ceremony because that is not his job. However I was accommodated for, there was a 'minister' on the books who specialized in humanist ceremonies.
I really feel that getting married should be the same. If they are in the business of performing weddings for money (which they are), then it should be made much more difficult for them to discriminate. Churches are not like other buildings, they are often quite important land marks and public spaces. In this country they are also often listed buildings of great age and beauty. It is understandable that people would want very much to use them for weddings, I personally think that if they pay their money then they should be allowed to, without being discriminated against on religious grounds.
joemysak311 wrote: As an anthropology major and man of science and reason, two people of the same sex cannot successfully reproduce. Yes I get where people can adopt and artificially inseminate or get a man or woman to help them create a child, but in the grand scheme of the species survival, if we sent a bunch of homosexuals out into space to explore the vastness of the universe, we wouldn't make it to the closest star system before dying out. I'm not against it I'm not for it, it's just not my style, but I'm all for the survival of our species and if every man and woman were homosexual to the fullest extent where they refused to bang to preserve the species, we would cease to exist.
And don't mention those stupid lizards that died out but one pregnant female survived and birthed all females and they still somehow exist and are born pregnant or something, we're not freakin lizards.
I'm just sayin, if you're for intergalactic space travel, don't be gay. Otherwise do whatever the hell you want.
Um...... whuuuuuuut? You do realize that there has been some scientific observation that 'homosexuality' may be mammals natural response to overpopulation and may actually be 'good' for the survival of species by hard-wiring creatures in overpopulated societies to be attracted to the opposite pheromones to result in a reduction in offspring? There are also peer reviewed studies that show that children born into households with older siblings of the same gender are more likely to be gay.
'Refuse to bang to preserve the species'? Seriously? Interstellar space travel? Seriously? Does the survival of the human race due to low birth rate or need to colonize planets generations away a valid talking point to this discussion or a reason there is a 'problem"? By time either of those are 'issues which need to be addressed' the science will probably have been solved so it probably won't be much of an issue... And hell, Even gay people can 'choose' to force breeding in the name of the end of the human race or science in a space program though I suspect it would be done more in a dish and less in a manual sperm deposit so it won't matter the orientation of the parents at all. Breeding and sexual preference are not at all tied in today's society or in the future. Homosexuality is not "the refusal to have genetic offspring" as you tend to imply with your 'cease to exist' statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: . Churches are not like other buildings, they are often quite important land marks and public spaces. In this country they are also often listed buildings of great age and beauty. It is understandable that people would want very much to use them for weddings, I personally think that if they pay their money then they should be allowed to, without being discriminated against on religious grounds.
They are not public spaces. They are private spaces like a home. Imagine if you own a really nice historic house, by your logic, I should have the right to get married in your house or throw a party there as long as I throw cash in your face simply because historically relevant buildings are the right of the entire population.
This is why churches are not actually rented, they are reserved for use by members of the congregation. If you are not a member, why should you have the government come in and force the church to let you use it? Why should I not be able to have the government come in and tell you that you have to let me use your historical house? This isn't Chuck E Cheeses...
Now there are those who feel the government should seize assets and force churches to pay corporate taxes and have business laws apply to them. I guess a historical building is enough to seize property from a church/business/private citizen for it to be available to the public in your eyes. (sometimes the government does this through eminent domain already)
Automatically Appended Next Post: And churches are not in the business of making money off of weddings. They make surprisingly little on weddings and the weddings are only at times when the church is idle from non-use anyways. To believe that is how churches work and to compare them to 'for profit' entertainment/wedding/funeral venues is a little disingenuous and reeks of anti-religious institution propaganda.
I really feel that getting married should be the same. If they are in the business of performing weddings for money (which they are), then it should be made much more difficult for them to discriminate. Churches are not like other buildings, they are often quite important land marks and public spaces. In this country they are also often listed buildings of great age and beauty. It is understandable that people would want very much to use them for weddings, I personally think that if they pay their money then they should be allowed to, without being discriminated against on religious grounds.
Um, no. They are not in the "business of performing weddings for money" and it's laughable that you think that. Most Catholic Churches won't perform a wedding ceremony without a mass or allow non-Catholics to be wed in them. Because for Catholics, it about the covenant of marriage and is a very important piece of the faith as it is considered a sacrament.
Churches should absolutely not have to accommodate people they don't want to simply because the building are pretty or because they hold historical significance.
And churches are not in the business of making money off of weddings. They make surprisingly little on weddings and the weddings are only at times when the church is idle from non-use anyways. To believe that is how churches work and to compare them to 'for profit' entertainment/wedding/funeral venues is a little disingenuous and reeks of anti-religious institution propaganda.
The gak would truly hit the fan if the courts tried to force churches to hold weddings against their beliefs, so I think that scenario is far in the future, if ever.
nkelsch wrote: Imagine if you own a really nice historic house, by your logic, I should have the right to get married in your house or throw a party there as long as I throw cash in your face simply because historically relevant buildings are the right of the entire population.
People already turn up, wave cash, and get married in churches. How does that fit into your analogy? Oh wait it doesn't because it's a nonsense straw-man. if I was in the business of renting out my home for functions, and I discriminated against a customer based on their religion then I would be breaking the law.
This is why churches are not actually rented, they are reserved for use by members of the congregation. If you are not a member, why should you have the government come in and force the church to let you use it? Why should I not be able to have the government come in and tell you that you have to let me use your historical house? This isn't Chuck E Cheeses...
The upkeep of many churches in the UK is often subsidized by public money in a separate fund from historical houses, which is "historical places of worship". Key difference there, and the fund doesn't specify one religion over another.
The argument is somewhat academic anyway, as more and more churches in the UK are failing to turn a profit and are being forced to rent out their spaces as function halls. Eventually economics may well force them to stop discriminating.
nkelsch wrote: Imagine if you own a really nice historic house, by your logic, I should have the right to get married in your house or throw a party there as long as I throw cash in your face simply because historically relevant buildings are the right of the entire population.
People already turn up, wave cash, and get married in churches. How does that fit into your analogy? Oh wait it doesn't because it's a nonsense straw-man. if I was in the business of renting out my home for functions, and I discriminated against a customer based on their religion then I would be breaking the law.
This is why churches are not actually rented, they are reserved for use by members of the congregation. If you are not a member, why should you have the government come in and force the church to let you use it? Why should I not be able to have the government come in and tell you that you have to let me use your historical house? This isn't Chuck E Cheeses...
The upkeep of many churches in the UK is often subsidized by public money in a separate fund from historical houses, which is "historical places of worship". Key difference there, and the fund doesn't specify one religion over another.
They don't wave cash at the churches in my religion. Where are these churches at that get rented out, and can you provide specifics and links on that claim?
You don't seem to understand how getting married at a church actually works. It's not a "service" you can "buy" like getting a new haircut. There's more to it.
Furthermore, I can't speak for the UK, but most countries spend money on maintaining old monuments, including churces, as it improves the overall look, it raises net worth of any nearby ground that might be up for sale, etc. Not to mention that a LOT of public services get supported by the state and wouldn't be able to run without it.
To me, it appears that you are fishing for reasons to irrationally discredit Christanity / churches instead of trying to make actual points.
Relapse wrote: That people rent out churches for weddings. It's a bit of an alien concept to me and I am trying to wrap my brain around people having to do that.
Are you disputing that people get married in churches?
Relapse wrote: That people rent out churches for weddings. It's a bit of an alien concept to me and I am trying to wrap my brain around people having to do that.
Are you disputing that people get married in churches?
Now you're just being silly. You came in with this statement that people wave cash at churches to rent them for marriages and I wanted specifics because I've never heard of anyone having to do that. If you're just trying to throw bs statements around, ok, enjoy.
Relapse wrote: Now you're just being silly. You came in with this statement that people wave cash at churches to rent them for marriages and I wanted specifics because I've never heard of anyone having to do that. If you're just trying to throw bs statements around, ok, enjoy.
Sigvatr wrote: If you link to sites to back points, how about you'd read them first? And find out what they charge people for?
The only point I needed to back was they do charge. The site gives a break down of what the money is for (vicar's time, upkeep of the church etc...) this is the same stuff private companies charge for, and incidentally the cost is about the same as hiring a non-CoE space for a wedding.
Also: you keep irrationally hating on Christian churches while at the same time calling them "discriminatory".
Sigvatr wrote: If you link to sites to back points, how about you'd read them first? And find out what they charge people for?
The only point I needed to back was they do charge. The site gives a break down of what the money is for (vicar's time, upkeep of the church etc...) this is the same stuff private companies charge for, and incidentally the cost is about the same as hiring a non-CoE space for a wedding.
So basically, they should work for free because...?
[...] just because I think Churches are a public space that should be available for people to use regardless of religion.
That's your problem. They aren't. Whether you think they are or not: they aren't. They're buildings that belong to the church and all that comes with it.
Their house, their roules. Don't like it, don't go there.
Smacks wrote: This does make me question what motivates gay people to want to be married before a god who allegedly considers them an abomination.
You might as well ask what motivates women to wear pants to church when their god allegedly considers that an abomination...
The answer is the same in both cases: many Christians ignore the parts of the bible that are patently absurd in today's world, on the assumption that the Bible is supposed to be a guidebook for living a good life as a good person, but since it's so very old the attitudes contained within it don't always fit today's society and occasionally need to be re-evaluated.
Sigvatr wrote: If you link to sites to back points, how about you'd read them first? And find out what they charge people for?
The only point I needed to back was they do charge. The site gives a break down of what the money is for (vicar's time, upkeep of the church etc...) this is the same stuff private companies charge for, and incidentally the cost is about the same as hiring a non-CoE space for a wedding.
So basically, they should work for free because...?
I didn't say they should work for free. I just think that if they take peoples money then it shouldn't be the case that "your money isn't good here" for people who are a protected group.
That's your problem. They aren't. Whether you think they are or not: they aren't. They're buildings that belong to the church and all that comes with it.
Their house, their roules. Don't like it, don't go there.
Actually I recanted that comment before you posted, because it wasn't what I wanted to say. But the the UK isn't a secular as other countries. The Queen who is the head of state here is also defender of the faith and head of the Church of England. In that sense many of them are public spaces.
Catholic churches might be different, but yes I do think they should be treated like any other corporation and pay tax and not be allowed to discriminate against people based on sexuality or religion. At least not for the purpose of renting a space.
You can argue all you want that the space is not rented and that it is for private members. But to my mind that is just a technicality, which is the equivalent of saying. My money is in offshore accounts so I don't have to pay tax. The space is used by the public, for money, to get married. It should be subject to the same rules as other function rooms for hire.
Smacks wrote: This does make me question what motivates gay people to want to be married before a god who allegedly considers them an abomination.
You might as well ask what motivates women to wear pants to church when their god allegedly considers that an abomination...
The answer is the same in both cases: many Christians ignore the parts of the bible that are patently absurd in today's world, on the assumption that the Bible is supposed to be a guidebook for living a good life as a good person, but since it's so very old the attitudes contained within it don't always fit today's society and occasionally need to be re-evaluated.
I agree that both things being an abomination are equally absurd. The difference however between wearing pants and gay marriage is that the Catholic church has an official stance on gay marriage and they are against it (I don't know exactly what their stance is on pants).
Relapse wrote: Now you're just being silly. You came in with this statement that people wave cash at churches to rent them for marriages and I wanted specifics because I've never heard of anyone having to do that. If you're just trying to throw bs statements around, ok, enjoy.
Apparently if I tip my waiter at a chilis I am now 'renting' chilis and if I pay an administrative fee and a tax to renew my passport I am 'renting' city hall.
To try to make statements to basically equivocate getting married in a church to a business transaction no different from renting out chuck e cheese for a birthday is madness.
And while there are specific laws which protect people against discrimination in some circumstances, 'Discrimination' is not actually illegal. You can't argue that you have the right to never be discriminated on any level in any aspect of society. You only have those rights in limited and explicit parts of society and only for some identified 'protected classes'. You can be denied a job because you are ugly, denied housing because you smell bad and denied access to a business/job due to physical attributes like age, height, weight, ability to lift something and so on. All are discrimination, all legal.
Smacks wrote: This does make me question what motivates gay people to want to be married before a god who allegedly considers them an abomination.
You might as well ask what motivates women to wear pants to church when their god allegedly considers that an abomination...
The answer is the same in both cases: many Christians ignore the parts of the bible that are patently absurd in today's world, on the assumption that the Bible is supposed to be a guidebook for living a good life as a good person, but since it's so very old the attitudes contained within it don't always fit today's society and occasionally need to be re-evaluated.
And that some people feel the need to try to change the church from within. I know many homosexual Catholics who are very religious and are willing to go the long haul hoping to see future reformation. Catholics are not as literal when it comes to bible as some of the stuff you find in evangelical united states sects of Christianity.
The Catholic Churches position leaves the door open that people may be scientifically born that way, but for now, they need to choose to not act on it and be chaste. They basically compare it to alcoholism, and that someone who is genetically predisposed to being an alcoholic should strive to not give in to his natural predisposition. Personally, I think we will see a shift from the Catholic church on this within our lifetime. I mean, hanging your hat on old testament Sodom and the rantings of Paul are not strong foundations and both are evolving church positions and are hot topics of debate within the catholic church.
any old man that is not conservative, has no brain
I hate that saying. as if people re supposed to follow a predetermined path of ideals
It's not so much a set or predetermined path of ideals, just that, most younger people are full of piss and vinegar, and want to change the world Right. Now. As they age and become wiser, some of their views may or may not change, but even the ones that don't change will probably become more accepted, come to pass and become more of the conservative ideal
So, Liberals have no brains, and conservatives no heart. Im sorry I disagree, Yes, as you get older, your view change, you my be liberal or conservative. I know people who where young republicans who voted for obama and vice versa. The saying is stupid, just plain studpid and insults alot of of people. It implies young people have no brains and that liberals who are older are stupid, and just says the republicans are heartless.
nkelsch wrote: To try to make statements to basically equivocate getting married in a church to a business transaction no different from renting out chuck e cheese for a birthday is madness.
I agree with you 100% it is not the same thing...
But it should be!
And while there are specific laws which protect people against discrimination in some circumstances, 'Discrimination' is not actually illegal. You can't argue that you have the right to never be discriminated on any level in any aspect of society. You only have those rights in limited and explicit parts of society and only for some identified 'protected classes'. You can be denied a job because you are ugly, denied housing because you smell bad and denied access to a business/job due to physical attributes like age, height, weight, ability to lift something and so on. All are discrimination, all legal.
nkelsch wrote: To try to make statements to basically equivocate getting married in a church to a business transaction no different from renting out chuck e cheese for a birthday is madness.
I agree with you 100% it is not the same thing...
But it should be!
And that is a position some people have... and others see that as an attack on religion, because it effectively will become one. I don't think the laws will change until society is ready to forcibly have the government remove religion from society.
And while there are specific laws which protect people against discrimination in some circumstances, 'Discrimination' is not actually illegal. You can't argue that you have the right to never be discriminated on any level in any aspect of society. You only have those rights in limited and explicit parts of society and only for some identified 'protected classes'. You can be denied a job because you are ugly, denied housing because you smell bad and denied access to a business/job due to physical attributes like age, height, weight, ability to lift something and so on. All are discrimination, all legal.
How about refused service?
I can refuse service because you are fat, poorly groomed, ugly, annoying, loud, under age... and there is not a damn thing you can do about it as those would not be protected classes and not covered under the current laws.
Now I also risk the backlash of being on the 5 oclock news for not serving someone for a pointless reason and harming my business in the meantime, but the government can't do a damn thing about it.
nkelsch wrote: You can be denied a job because you are ugly, denied housing because you smell bad and denied access to a business/job due to physical attributes like age, height, weight, ability to lift something and so on. All are discrimination, all legal.
Depending on where you are, obviously.
Down here, turning someone down for a job because of their appearance is illegal. The only thing on your list there that would be legal is the 'ability to lift'... but if you're applying for a job that requires heavy lifting, and you're not capable of heavy lifting, then turning you down isn't a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of suitability.
And yes, certain employers (several boutique clothing stores and gyms over the years) have tried the 'Yeah, but fat and ugly people aren't suitable for presenting our brand in a positive way' approach in front of wrongful dismissal hearings, and in every case I'm aware of they have lost.
nkelsch wrote: To try to make statements to basically equivocate getting married in a church to a business transaction no different from renting out chuck e cheese for a birthday is madness.
I agree with you 100% it is not the same thing...
But it should be!
And that is a position some people have... and others see that as an attack on religion, because it effectively will become one. I don't think the laws will change until society is ready to forcibly have the government remove religion from society.
Okay. Well thank you, that is a polite objective response. Perhaps we can agree to to disagree. One man's attack could be another man's regulation. Exalted.
I can refuse service because you are fat, poorly groomed, ugly, annoying, loud, under age... and there is not a damn thing you can do about it as those would not be protected classes and not covered under the current laws.
I could be at least three of those things! :p
Race and religion are protected though, and I think sexuality probably 'should' be where it isn't already. The church is a slightly awkward case because they are historically public spaces that have become 'sort of' corporately owned, and now exist in a world where the public is much more diverse in terms of belief than it would have been when churches were built and dedicated.
A better example might be comparing a church to a corporation.
I can't just walk up to a business and demand that they let me rent the conference room for a party. Most places have certain rules about the conference room and the use of it is reserved to employees of that company with rules about how to reserve it, who gets priority, etc. Joe Smith down the street isn't on the "gets to use it" list and shouldn't be.
Same with a church. There are rules about who gets to use the sanctuary/meeting rooms/gym/whatever you might have, and it is reserved to members of the congregation with further rules about who gets priority, how to reserve it, etc.
Edit: Now "how do we force churches to let gays get married there" is probably pretty off topic to the whole "how do you force gays to not get married without using religion as the justification" topic of the thread. And if religion is off-limits as a justification for attacking homosexuality then we should probably keep homosexuality off-limit as an attack against churches.
Down here, turning someone down for a job because of their appearance is illegal. The only thing on your list there that would be legal is the 'ability to lift'... but if you're applying for a job that requires heavy lifting, and you're not capable of heavy lifting, then turning you down isn't a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of suitability.
Ultimately, denying someone a job because of their being ugly IS illegal here in the US (unless your job is to be a fashion model or something), however most places that hire people to work are VERY good with coming up with "legal" reasons to deny your employment at their place. Sure, the "real" reason may be because of your skin color, gender, age, aesthetics, weight, etc. but if asked, they'll tell whoevers asking a reason full of legalese, to make the non-hiring a completely legitimate reason.
As to "renting" a church for a wedding, most places that I know of require a minimum of 6 months of pre-counseling done by a staffmember/pastor/priest of that congregation, which you have to pay for. Plus, there's paying for the use/time (as in, the electric bill for the lights, sound, etc) of the facility, the preacher/clergyman's time, etc. Without being a member of that church, I can't see any reason why a gay couple would want to subject themselves to that sort of ordeal when, in MOST churches they will be either turned away for not following the religion, or they will be looked down on, and proselytized during the entire process. And for people to suggest that the US government should "force" churches to open their doors and perform ceremonies for gay couples, clearly doesn't understand the constitution.
People that belong to that parish and are of that faith.
And adhere to the tenets of said faith.
The thing is that used to be everybody. Now it isn't.
Marriage also used to be between a man and a woman. Now it isn't.
Things change.
And when the requirements of people who live in a parish (such as the need to get married) start to conflict with a big corporate organization like the catholic church. I don't think it as black and white as saying "oh this big billion dollar sociopolitical organization seems to own everything, I wonder how that happened? I guess they must be right". The government can and should protect the rights of local people. If a local person is gay and christian and wants to have a legal marriage in their local community church, I think there is certainly some entitlement and room for compromise.
The thing is that used to be everybody. Now it isn't.
I'm no religious historian, but I'm fairly certain there were other religions in the past, too. Regardless, it's irrelevant.
Marriage also used to be between a man and a woman. Now it isn't.
It is in the Catholic Church.
And when the requirements of people who live in a parish (such as the need to get married) start to conflict with a big corporate organization like the catholic church. I don't think it as black and white as saying "oh this big billion dollar sociopolitical organization seems to own everything, I wonder how that happened? I guess they must be right". The government can and should protect the rights of local people. If a local person is gay and christian and wants to have a legal marriage in their local community church, I think there is certainly some entitlement and room for compromise.
There is no need to get married. Nor is it a right. And it certainly isn't a right for you get married wherever you want.
If we can't use religion to argue against same-sex marriage, can we also stop arguing against religion and how it relates to same-sex marriage?
Or is religion okay to be included now and we can go back to "God says you can't get married" for a couple pages before we lock this?
I'm happy to drop the discussion if it is off topic.
It's not a bad discussion to have.
But I know the initial goal of the thread was to have a discussion about "non-religious" arguments against same-sex marriage. And when we start to talk about "should churches be forced to participate" we really need to let the religious argument against same-sex marriage back into the discussion IMO. If we don't If we don't we just kind of end up with a "you have to let us use your religious building but you can't use your religion to argue against why we shouldn't" kind of scenario (at least within the initial topic of this thread).
What I don't understand, is why these gay people who insist on being married in a church want to be married in a church that rejects them in the first place. In their shoes, I'd be flipping them the bird, honestly..... (Edit: The church, not the gays)
And it's not even a necessary requirement to be married. If you live in the same abode together for a unspecified *cough*unremembered*cough* time, you can legally be married in the eyes of the state.
Slarg232 wrote: What I don't understand, is why these gay people who insist on being married in a church want to be married in a church that rejects them in the first place. In their shoes, I'd be flipping them the bird, honestly..... (Edit: The church, not the gays)
And it's not even a necessary requirement to be married. If you live in the same abode together for a unspecified *cough*unremembered*cough* time, you can legally be married in the eyes of the state.
I also don't particularly understand why a gay couple who wanted Pasty Chef X to make their wedding cake will sue Pastry Chef X when Pastry Chef X says, "feth off, I hate gay people, go die," instead of taking their business elsewhere. If you successfully force someone to make you food against their will, the amount of spit and other bodily fluids you'll be eating as a result is probably pretty impressive.
Yet people do it. I understand the need for test cases to get the law all hashed out, but Jesus.
Slarg232 wrote: What I don't understand, is why these gay people who insist on being married in a church want to be married in a church that rejects them in the first place.
The vast majority of gay people who want marriage rights don't care about getting married in churches. There are some people who are members of churches and want to be married in their church, but can't be because they are gay. Some of those people want their churches to change, because they feel they are members of the church and that are hurt that their own faith does not embrace them. Some churches tell their members that not being part of the church means burning forever in Hell and never having communion with God or eternal peace. Raise children on that belief, and then when they grow up to be gay, some of them will not want to leave the church, no matter how vehemently the church itself wants them to go.
The vast majority of gay people who want marriage rights don't care about getting married in churches. There are some people who are members of churches and want to be married in their church, but can't be because they are gay. Some of those people want their churches to change, because they feel they are members of the church and that are hurt that their own faith does not embrace them. Some churches tell their members that not being part of the church means burning forever in Hell and never having communion with God or eternal peace. Raise children on that belief, and then when they grow up to be gay, some of them will not want to leave the church, no matter how vehemently the church itself wants them to go.
Yeah, except the majority of modern and major religions deem homosexuality to be wrong on basically every level... So, if you are truly a member of that church/religion then you can't/shouldn't be gay and in that church.
I have seen news articles in states where gay marriage has been passed, where a VERY small minority of churches have said, "if you are gay, and want to be married, we'll do the ceremony" because the pastors felt that the true love aspect needed more respect than being a hardliner to his/her doctrine.But it should remain that way, as in, down to the individual pastor/priest/rabbi/clergyman to decide whether he/she feels it is morally right to marry people who love each other regardless of what his faith/doctrine tells him/her is wrong.
You don't need to be married in a church, at least not in the US. You simply go down to a civic building/courthouse and can have the state issue a marriage license.
If you want a religious marriage you do it in a church but a religious marriage and a state marriage are two separate entities.
But I know the initial goal of the thread was to have a discussion about "non-religious" arguments against same-sex marriage. And when we start to talk about "should churches be forced to participate" we really need to let the religious argument against same-sex marriage back into the discussion IMO. If we don't If we don't we just kind of end up with a "you have to let us use your religious building but you can't use your religion to argue against why we shouldn't" kind of scenario (at least within the initial topic of this thread).
That's my only concern at this point.
I guess the argument could be made that allowing a gay wedding to take place in a church would be somehow destructive to the church's sacred mojo, and then the gayness would need to be exorcised, before it can be used for worship again.
The problem with the initial topic restrictions is that there are no good arguments against same-sex marriage from a purely civil point of view. Arguments about family and normality etc... are fairly easy to refute. So the argument dissolves into something like "It's ickky and I don't like it", or at worst "it's decadent and will destroy society" which is hard to justify.
The argument against the sanctity of the church building is really the same argument made from a religious perspective.
The argument of the church being property is much more compelling.
It might be relevant that there does exist some sort of agreement between church and state that Church weddings are recognized as legitimate state weddings. In the UK (for example) a church is one of the few places that a wedding can legally take place. So it follows that this agreement could run both ways. For a church to be recognized by the state as a legitimate place where a wedding can take place, the church must in turn recognize and accommodate other legitimate state weddings.
paulson games wrote: You don't need to be married in a church, at least not in the US. You simply go down to a civic building/courthouse and can have the state issue a marriage license.
If you want a religious marriage you do it in a church but a religious marriage and a state marriage are two separate entities.
They are usually combined though by having the religious officiant sign the state issued license.
Smacks wrote: . In the UK (for example) a church is on of the few places that a wedding can legally take place.
Are the church weddings "real weddings" in the UK?
I want to say that in Germany everybody signed all the legal paperwork in the civic office, and the religious wedding was just a formality with no legal impact whatsoever.
Smacks wrote: . In the UK (for example) a church is on of the few places that a wedding can legally take place.
Are the church weddings "real weddings" in the UK?
I want to say that in Germany everybody signed all the legal paperwork in the civic office, and the religious wedding was just a formality with no legal impact whatsoever.
I could be wrong though...
I think the religious content is somewhat incidental, but the church building is very important. I went to a wedding recently where they wanted to have the wedding outside, but when the official turned up, we were told that it wouldn't be legal, and so the ceremony had to be moved inside to a chapel.
As a Reformed Jew and a Gay Man, the only non-religious argument I have encountered (as explained to me by a very cute homophobe) is that children who are raised in same-sex households turn out homosexual and mentally scarred and broken.
The empirical evidence points to Homosexuality being extremely benign. I can get married (I live in Massachussetts, the greatest goddamn state) thank God. If I couldn't, I'd be furious. Why can't I mark my love with a ceremony for God? Because other people think that their (same exact freakin') God says it's bad? I think that is simply dumb.
Chowderhead wrote: As a Reformed Jew and a Gay Man, the only non-religious argument I have encountered (as explained to me by a very cute homophobe) is that children who are raised in same-sex households turn out homosexual and mentally scarred and broken.
The empirical evidence points to Homosexuality being extremely benign. I can get married (I live in Massachussetts, the greatest goddamn state) thank God. If I couldn't, I'd be furious. Why can't I mark my love with a ceremony for God? Because other people think that their (same exact freakin') God says it's bad? I think that is simply dumb.
#Jesussaidnothigabouthomosexuality
Chowder.... Isn't jewish anymore?
I DON'T KNOW YOU, YOU'RE NOT THE CHOWDER I KNOW!!!!
I think the religious content is somewhat incidental, but the church building is very important. I went to a wedding recently where they wanted to have the wedding outside, but when the official turned up, we were told that it wouldn't be legal, and so the ceremony had to be moved inside to a chapel.
Again, this is in no way similar to the US, where outdoor weddings re exceedingly common.
I think the religious content is somewhat incidental, but the church building is very important. I went to a wedding recently where they wanted to have the wedding outside, but when the official turned up, we were told that it wouldn't be legal, and so the ceremony had to be moved inside to a chapel.
Again, this is in no way similar to the US, where outdoor weddings re exceedingly common.
So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?
Chowderhead wrote: As a Reformed Jew and a Gay Man, the only non-religious argument I have encountered (as explained to me by a very cute homophobe) is that children who are raised in same-sex households turn out homosexual and mentally scarred and broken.
The empirical evidence points to Homosexuality being extremely benign. I can get married (I live in Massachussetts, the greatest goddamn state) thank God. If I couldn't, I'd be furious. Why can't I mark my love with a ceremony for God? Because other people think that their (same exact freakin') God says it's bad? I think that is simply dumb.
#Jesussaidnothigabouthomosexuality
Chowder.... Isn't jewish anymore?
I DON'T KNOW YOU, YOU'RE NOT THE CHOWDER I KNOW!!!!
Do you even sail boats anymore?!?
( )
Reformed Judaism is simply Judaism with Smartphones, expensive lattes, and equality. And Rabbis who play Plants Versus Zombies.
Good to see you again, Slarg my man!
MrDwhitey wrote:Who let Chowder back in?
Well, after you bound me, gagged me, and left me for dead (again), I managed to hitchhike out of Jakarta and get home.
So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?
I don't know what a "real wedding" is.
It was a term that d-usa used on the last page, which I thought was perfectly understandable. Especially In the context of "where the legal part takes place". But never mind, it's easier to just look it up myself.
The portion of a partnership that grants you legal protection as a married couple has nothing to do with religion in the United States beyond the fact that priest, pastors, and ministers are legally allowed to marry people.
But then again, so can any joe blow off the street with about 15 minutes spent on the internet.
I think the religious content is somewhat incidental, but the church building is very important. I went to a wedding recently where they wanted to have the wedding outside, but when the official turned up, we were told that it wouldn't be legal, and so the ceremony had to be moved inside to a chapel.
Again, this is in no way similar to the US, where outdoor weddings re exceedingly common.
So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?
Weddings take place in churches all the time here and are recognized as binding.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Yeah, except the majority of modern and major religions deem homosexuality to be wrong on basically every level... So, if you are truly a member of that church/religion then you can't/shouldn't be gay and in that church.
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
If you raise someone to believe that a loss of communion with the church results in eternal damnation/separation from god, when they realize they are gay one of the possible reactions they will have is to insist that they are a good person, and that it doesn't make sense that their church deems homosexuality to be wrong and want to change it. But a far more common reaction is to realize that religious authority is just human authority, and that bigots and hatemongers who hide behind altars don't actually speak for god. So they just leave that church, or that religion. Some lose faith entirely, other hide that they are gay, others become obsessed with policing other people's sex lives because they can't enjoy theirs.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Yeah, except the majority of modern and major religions deem homosexuality to be wrong on basically every level... So, if you are truly a member of that church/religion then you can't/shouldn't be gay and in that church.
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are plenty often able to be rational when it comes to their religion. The ability to be a critical thinker and being of faith are not mutually exclusive.
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.
So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?
99.9% of Church weddings are "real weddings" in the US. Not because of any religious significance in the eye of the state, but because the person officiating (aka: the clergy) is registered with the state as an officiant and has been granted legal authority by the state to marry people and sign the certificate.
cincydooley wrote: The portion of a partnership that grants you legal protection as a married couple has nothing to do with religion in the United States beyond the fact that priest, pastors, and ministers are legally allowed to marry people.
But then again, so can any joe blow off the street with about 15 minutes spent on the internet.
Actually false in Oklahoma (and probably many other states). Here is our law:
§43-7. Solemnization of marriages. A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.
Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people. He also has to spend additional time filing his certificate that ordained him with the county in which he wants to marry people.
cincydooley wrote: Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are plenty often able to be rational when it comes to their religion. The ability to be a critical thinker and being of faith are not mutually exclusive.
Never said they were. Look, you want an answer to the question? There's your answer. Some people who are raised Christian want to remain in the Church even when they realize they are gay, because...they have faith! They actually believe in God and Jesus and all that. How is hard to understand that they don't want to be rejected by their church?
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.
Please stop being defensive. I did NOT say people who believe in religion are NEVER rational. Please don't pretend I did, it's obnoxious, rude and argumentative. Some people have mixed, irrational religious beliefs that don't make sense. That is not a statement about ALL religious people, just SOME. If you can't even acknowledge that SOME people have odd, incongruous and nonsensical beliefs about religion.
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.
It's probably quite pertinent that the first name on the list is Copernicus, who famously did not take the bible at its word on geocentrism. Belief in a god does not necessarily correspond to belief in all baseless religious dogma.
d-usa wrote: Actually false in Oklahoma (and probably many other states). Here is our law:
§43-7. Solemnization of marriages.
A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.
Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people.
If you are ordained you are a religious authority. I was ordained by the universal life church 15 years ago. Thus I am a religious authority. Even in Oklahoma.
Please stop being defensive. I did NOT say people who believe in religion are NEVER rational. Please don't pretend I did, it's obnoxious, rude and argumentative. Some people have mixed, irrational religious beliefs that don't make sense. That is not a statement about ALL religious people, just SOME. If you can't even acknowledge that SOME people have odd, incongruous and nonsensical beliefs about religion.
Please stop generalizing. It's obnoxious, rude, argumentative, and condescending.
Some people have mixed, irrational, "scientific" believes that don't make sense (hello Jenny McCarthy).
If you are ordained you are a religious authority. I was ordained by the universal life church 15 years ago. Thus I am a religious authority. Even in Oklahoma.
The feth it does. It makes you legally able to marry people. I hardly makes you an authority on anything.
Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people. He also has to spend additional time filing his certificate that ordained him with the county in which he wants to marry people.
The ease of being 'ordained' is to what I was referring.
Please stop being defensive. I did NOT say people who believe in religion are NEVER rational. Please don't pretend I did, it's obnoxious, rude and argumentative. Some people have mixed, irrational religious beliefs that don't make sense. That is not a statement about ALL religious people, just SOME. If you can't even acknowledge that SOME people have odd, incongruous and nonsensical beliefs about religion.
Not being defensive, just helping you along with your critical thinking. When you make blanket statements, you should stand by for correction when it's warrented.
d-usa wrote: Actually false in Oklahoma (and probably many other states). Here is our law:
§43-7. Solemnization of marriages.
A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.
Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people.
If you are ordained you are a religious authority. I was ordained by the universal life church 15 years ago. Thus I am a religious authority. Even in Oklahoma.
Exactly the point.
Not everybody can marry people. Only religious officials.
If Joe Blow spends 15 minutes getting ordained by anybody then he is no longer Joe Blow of the street, he is Joe Blow the religious authority.
Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people. He also has to spend additional time filing his certificate that ordained him with the county in which he wants to marry people.
The ease of being 'ordained' is to what I was referring.
That's what I figured. Just wanted to clarify that "getting internet ordained in 15 minutes" doesn't diminish the requirement that a religious official officiate.
friendlycommissar wrote: Please stop being defensive. I did NOT say people who believe in religion are NEVER rational. Please don't pretend I did, it's obnoxious, rude and argumentative. Some people have mixed, irrational religious beliefs that don't make sense. That is not a statement about ALL religious people, just SOME. If you can't even acknowledge that SOME people have odd, incongruous and nonsensical beliefs about religion.
Please stop generalizing. It's obnoxious, rude, argumentative, and condescending.
I didn't generalize. You're being defensive.
Some people have mixed, irrational, "scientific" believes that don't make sense (hello Jenny McCarthy).
Yes, you're right. That has literally nothing to do with my point. It is a complete non-sequitor. You are being ridiculously defensive.
friendlycommissar wrote: If you are ordained you are a religious authority. I was ordained by the universal life church 15 years ago. Thus I am a religious authority. Even in Oklahoma.
The feth it does. It makes you legally able to marry people. I hardly makes you an authority on anything.
I meet all of the legal qualifications of being a religious authority. I'm not saying I'm an expert on religion, I'm saying that I have the exact same legal powers in the United States that the Pope has. From a legal standpoint I have the same amount of religious authority as Jimmy Swaggert and Ted Haggard.
friendlycommissar wrote: Please stop being defensive. I did NOT say people who believe in religion are NEVER rational. Please don't pretend I did, it's obnoxious, rude and argumentative. Some people have mixed, irrational religious beliefs that don't make sense. That is not a statement about ALL religious people, just SOME. If you can't even acknowledge that SOME people have odd, incongruous and nonsensical beliefs about religion.
Not being defensive, just helping you along with your critical thinking. When you make blanket statements, you should stand by for correction when it's warrented.
I didn't make a blanket statement. Your response was a complete non-sequitor. Please, in the future, don't attempt to help my critical thinking skills, focus on developing some of your own. Okay?
Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.
Smacks wrote: Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.
Just to be clear in the US there is no movement have the government to force churches to allow gay marriages to take place inside. That is not what the gay marriage debate is about in the US, and the idea that the debate is about that issue is just a scare tactic used by opponents of civil gay marriage.
Just to be clear in the US there is no movement have the government to force churches to allow gay marriages to take place inside. That is not what the gay marriage debate is about in the US, and the idea that the debate is about that issue is just a scare tactic used by opponents of civil gay marriage.
No one claimed it was; Smacks had a misunderstanding of how legal marriage works in the US and brought it up.
In the United States, however, businesses are getting sued for not wanting to take part in homosexual marriages. While not the same thing, they are certainly related.
Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.
I assume heterosexual couples can also get married there?
Yes of course. They usually aren't quite as pretty as churches though. I think most Church of England churches will allow heterosexual couples to marry in the church with very minimal requirements. Religious buildings can Opt-in with regards to gay marriage, but they aren't forced to.
Smacks wrote: Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.
Yeah, location is pretty much a complete non-issue in the US. The only location requirement in Oklahoma is that the person that officiates has to be registered in the county that he is officiating in. But all the actual legal powers of marriage comes from the county office that issues the initial license, and the officiant that performs the actual wedding and signs it. The actual location is completely irrelevant and a wedding performed by a internet-minister in a truck-stop bathroom is just as legal as a wedding performed by the Archbishop of Oklahoma in the biggest Cathedral in the State.
Smacks wrote: Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.
Just to be clear in the US there is no movement have the government to force churches to allow gay marriages to take place inside. That is not what the gay marriage debate is about in the US, and the idea that the debate is about that issue is just a scare tactic used by opponents of civil gay marriage.
The whole debate here was more of a procedural issue of how things work in the US compared to other countries that Dakkanauts are located in.
Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.
I assume heterosexual couples can also get married there?
Yes of course. They usually aren't quite as pretty as churches though. I think most Church of England churches will allow heterosexual couples to marry in the church with very minimal requirements. Religious buildings can Opt-in with regards to gay marriage, but they aren't forced to.
Prince Charles got married in a registry office for #2 didn't he?
Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.
I assume heterosexual couples can also get married there?
Yes of course. They usually aren't quite as pretty as churches though. I think most Church of England churches will allow heterosexual couples to marry in the church with very minimal requirements. Religious buildings can Opt-in with regards to gay marriage, but they aren't forced to.
I can tell you that definitely isn't the case here. We live within 10 miles of about 7 Catholic Churches (there's nearly 90 in Cincinnati) and the one we wanted to get married in required you were a member of their congregation for 12 months first. So we just had it in the parish we regularly go to. Had pre-Cana. Had multiple counseling sessions with our priest. There are a significant number of requirements.
cincydooley wrote: I can tell you that definitely isn't the case here. We live within 10 miles of about 7 Catholic Churches (there's nearly 90 in Cincinnati) and the one we wanted to get married in required you were a member of their congregation for 12 months first. So we just had it in the parish we regularly go to. Had pre-Cana. Had multiple counseling sessions with our priest. There are a significant number of requirements.
It might be similar here if you live outside the parish area. I think the site I looked at said the you would need to attend service for 6 months. But it would also be adequate if you, or one of your parents could show that you once lived nearby for 6 months. There is also probably some counseling involved, but obviously same-sex couples would never get that far. I don't think there is any requirement to be a member of the faith.
d-usa wrote: Prince Charles got married in a registry office for #2 didn't he?
(Completely unrelated question )
Haha, yeah kind of. I think Camilla is technically a woman though.
They originally wanted to have the wedding at Clarence House with special permission, but then it was discovered that they would have to open the building up for common people to get married there too, so it was moved to another location.
Weddings can technically be held anywhere, (for example hotels) but they need permission from the local authority. I'm not sure exactly under what circumstances permission is approved or denied, but I think a roof is a requirement.
Smacks wrote: Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.
Yeah, location is pretty much a complete non-issue in the US. The only location requirement in Oklahoma is that the person that officiates has to be registered in the county that he is officiating in. But all the actual legal powers of marriage comes from the county office that issues the initial license, and the officiant that performs the actual wedding and signs it. The actual location is completely irrelevant and a wedding performed by a internet-minister in a truck-stop bathroom is just as legal as a wedding performed by the Archbishop of Oklahoma in the biggest Cathedral in the State.
)
Yep, I got married in the "Capel of Love", in Las Vegas 13 years and a few kids ago. It was funny because we kept hearing bells ringing as we were setting things up. It turned out that the bells were from people driving up to get married curbside, in their cars.
There's a whole story to that wedding trip and what led up to it, but like the man says, " You don't want to hear it and I don't want to tell it."
mondo80 wrote: Sarah Palin would say that two hotdogs don't put a bun in the oven. Every fiber in my being tells me she is a moron.
well... in this case, she's factually correct. But the phrase is still some kinda weird homey-Alaskan phrase or something.
Of course, the ability to put a "bun in the oven" has no bearing whatsoever on the happiness of an adult couple. Hell, I know PLENTY of hetero couples who are completely miserable, but have multiple kids.
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.
I might add I work with scientists on a daily basis that are at least 95%, if not all, Christian.
Sigh. I bolded the key point for you: when it comes to their religion. People can do good work involving critical thinking in the rest of their life despite believing in something completely irrational in one non-work-related area, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't show that same critical thinking when it comes to things they've put into a special "do not question because I really want it to be true" category.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Actually false in Oklahoma (and probably many other states). Here is our law:
But none of that contradicts the statement you quoted. Any random person can get the authority to perform marriages, and who does it has absolutely nothing to do with what the final result is. The fact that you have to do a bit of additional paperwork in addition to your internet-form "ordination" that might make it 16 minutes instead of 15 doesn't do anything to weaken the substance of the argument: that the entire involvement of religion in legal marriage is that certain religious officials are granted the ability to fill out some paperwork to make a marriage official.
Also, the law in your state is blatantly unconstitutional since it gives special privileges to Christianity. It could never be enforced as-written.
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.
I might add I work with scientists on a daily basis that are at least 95%, if not all, Christian.
Sigh. I bolded the key point for you: when it comes to their religion. People can do good work involving critical thinking in the rest of their life despite believing in something completely irrational in one non-work-related area, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't show that same critical thinking when it comes to things they've put into a special "do not question because I really want it to be true" category.
I have heard entirely rational sounding reasons why scientists that are Christian hold their beliefs. Stop to think about what you are saying for a moment. You are saying every scientist that is Christian puts aside a lifetime of trained critical thinking to follow a belief you don't hold.
Not logical on your part.
Relapse wrote: I have heard entirely rational sounding reasons why scientists that are Christian hold their beliefs. Stop to think about what you are saying for a moment. You are saying every scientist that is Christian puts aside a lifetime of trained critical thinking to follow a belief you don't hold.
Not logical on your part.
While diverting somewhat from the original topic, the supernatural is by definition something that cannot be defined by science. It is interesting from a psychological point of view how people can hold diametrically opposing viewpoints simultaneously. Most commonly I have heard that people essentially maintain the spiritual beliefs in a separate box from the rational world of science.
Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. By definition.
By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.
I'm all for gays and lesbians committing to a union, but don't call it marriage.
If a catholic priest is asked to marry a gay couple, and he refuses, he can be targeted for discrimination. Which is what I think the gay/lesbian militant group want to do.
But all in all. The US govt should not be involved in the marriage debate.
Technically marriage is not a constitutional right. No where in the constitution or bill of rights does it state that marriage is fundamental natural god given right.
It's why you need a marriage license. If the government, has to give you permission to marry, you are not entitled to it.
There are no reasons against it what so ever, some people just still don't like the idea but like to pretend they aren't homophobic by hiding behind religion (that says nothing about it) and tradition, when people have finally accepted it then there will be no arguments against it.
Although personally I don't see why marriage should be available for anyone as it is religious and a giant portion of the world isn't religious and it has too many traditions in it.
Why not scrap marriage and let everyone have civil partnerships with laws around it similar to marriage but adapted to modern day?
Who cares about a stupid constitution, does it say that a same sex cannot marry? It is human rights that matter and everyone should have that right. If a priest refuses to marry a same sex couple he should be targeted for discriminating as that is what he is doing, his religion says nothing about it
Johnnytorrance wrote: Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. By definition.
Or a man and women, or a child and adult, or a child and child.
You know, it has also not been the union of a black and a white person, or a person of one caste and another caste...
Marriage is not an immutable concept, as has been shown how it has changed through time and how it is, even today, very different in different cultures.
By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.
By not calling gay and lesbian (and possibly other groupings) marriage, you kinda force people who think that everyone should be treated equally to accept not being equal in the eyes of the law and society.
I'm all for gays and lesbians committing to a union, but don't call it marriage.
"I'm all for blacks and whites committing to a union, but don't call it marriage."
If a catholic priest is asked to marry a gay couple, and he refuses, he can be targeted for discrimination. Which is what I think the gay/lesbian militant group want to do.
I'm pretty sure it is not. There are some catholic priests who of course would marry "non-biblical" groups (you know, except for the ones which are currently illegal such as adult-child marriages...) while others would not. While I think that it is quite sad that people would refuse service to those they don't like, religion does enjoy certain protections. I don't know of any group campaigning for equal rights in marriage that wants to force people to conduct weddings - they just want equal recognition under the law.
But all in all. The US govt should not be involved in the marriage debate.
The government is elected to represent the people. If the people want change or debate, the government should reflect that.
Technically marriage is not a constitutional right. No where in the constitution or bill of rights does it state that marriage is fundamental natural god given right.
Technically the constitution is just a piece of paper, as is the bill or rights and other amendments (note the word "amendment") that can be changed at any point. Nor does it represent the be all and end all of law in America. If it did, your court system would be absolute chaos.
It's why you need a marriage license. If the government, has to give you permission to marry, you are not entitled to it.
The government also gives you permission to do everything else you do... they have the ability to remove any "right" from you at any time. They most probably will not for the majority of them unless "terrorists", but the possibility is there. A right is only a right so long as it is enforced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Veggieburgess wrote: Although personally I don't see why marriage should be available for anyone as it is religious and a giant portion of the world isn't religious and it has too many traditions in it.
Why not scrap marriage and let everyone have civil partnerships with laws around it similar to marriage but adapted to modern day?
Words have importance and significance. That is why people fight over them. Marriage is a word that applies to a concept that is significant for lots of people and should be open to as many people as possible, not reserved for a select group.
Johnnytorrance wrote: It's why you need a marriage license. If the government, has to give you permission to marry, you are not entitled to it.
The government also gives you permission to do everything else you do... they have the ability to remove any "right" from you at any time. They most probably will not for the majority of them unless "terrorists", but the possibility is there. A right is only a right so long as it is enforced.
Exactly! the government has a bigger stick, that doesn't make their ideas right, it just makes them difficult to resist. The church also has a big stick.
I don't think what is currently legal is a good place to look for "god-given" (for lack of a better term) rights. If it were then laws would never improve. Rights are more the domain of philosophy. I believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does include the right to marry and start a family. Though even if you base your philosophy on the Bible, marriage seems to be pretty important. God frequently insists on it.
Relapse wrote: I have heard entirely rational sounding reasons why scientists that are Christian hold their beliefs.
They weren't rational. There is no rational argument for belief in Christianity, and people who believe in it will even proudly brag about how you need irrational desire to believe despite the evidence (it's just called "faith").
You are saying every scientist that is Christian puts aside a lifetime of trained critical thinking to follow a belief you don't hold.
Exactly. I'd say the same if these scientists were doing good science, and then separately talking about how 1+1=5. They might be good scientists, but they're not applying those critical thinking skills and standards of evidence to their religion. If they were they wouldn't be Christians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Johnnytorrance wrote: By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.
So what? Why should we care about how the poor repulsive bigots are having their feelings hurt? This is like saying that we need to call interracial marriage something else because otherwise the poor KKK members wouldn't be happy.
If a catholic priest is asked to marry a gay couple, and he refuses, he can be targeted for discrimination.
No, they can't be targeted at all unless you're talking about calling for a private boycott or public shaming or whatever, which you can already do right now. Nobody relevant is demanding that private organizations perform their special ceremonies for anyone that they don't want to accept, we're talking about legal marriage. The only time this could possibly come up is if you're talking about a situation where the priest is the only government official (remember, they sign marriage documents as a representative of the government, not a representative of their church) able to perform the legal marriage, and then all they would be obligated to do would be to sign the paperwork just like if you took your marriage documents to the local courthouse.
(And needless to say this isn't a very likely scenario.)
The US govt should not be involved in the marriage debate.
That's not a realistic thing to ask for. Either the government takes a side and continues to refuse to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex, or the government takes a side and starts recognizing them. Saying "we're not getting involved" is still getting involved because it means declaring that the current situation is ok.
Johnnytorrance wrote: Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. By definition.
No, it hasn't. There's evidence that the Romans allowed same-sex couples to marry, as at that point in time marriage was simply a legal joining together of two peoples' property.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that other cultures also allowed it from time to time.
By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.
No, by calling a gay or lesbian union marriage, you allow gays and lesbians to get married.
Why that would have any effect whatsoever on anybody not directly involved in that relationship is beyond me. If my neighbours call themselves married, or call themselves bonded, or call themselves Eunice, it makes absolutely no difference to me and my relationship with my wife, whether I 'agree with their lifestyle' or not.
Whatever that means. Why on earth does someone have to 'agree with the lifestyle' in order for it to be acceptable? I don't agree with the idea of getting up at 5am in the middle of winter to go for a jog... but I don't think that means that joggers shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Johnnytorrance wrote: Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. By definition.
Nope.
By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.
Nope. That is just more persecution fantasies from the religious right. Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being white or black or male or female; it is an intrinsic part of who you are, not something that is chosen.
I'm all for gays and lesbians committing to a union, but don't call it marriage.
You don't don't get to bogart terms just because people you think don't deserve them want them to apply to everyone. Sorry dude.
If a catholic priest is asked to marry a gay couple, and he refuses, he can be targeted for discrimination. Which is what I think the gay/lesbian militant group want to do.
Nope... again. This is more of the persecution fantasy that the religious right loves to peddle to the people. No one is saying that, not even close.
But all in all. The US govt should not be involved in the marriage debate.
Yes they should. States denying rights to citizens is a perfect example of a time when the Federal Government should be involved in something.
Technically marriage is not a constitutional right. No where in the constitution or bill of rights does it state that marriage is fundamental natural god given right.
It might do you a favor to pick up a copy of the United States Constitution and give it a read, specifically the Ninth Amendment (it's the one right after the Eighth but before the Tenth). The text reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That implicitly refers to natural rights (you know, that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing the Founders went on about) that are not enumerated by the Constitution that the government is forbidden to infringe upon, something that is further reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment (as interpreted by the Supreme Court).
It's why you need a marriage license. If the government, has to give you permission to marry, you are not entitled to it.
Marriage is not an entitlement. The State shouldn't give people a marriage license; it is an antiquated and unnecessary. The State should instead give people a "marriage certificate" similar to a birth certificate so that way all of the preexisting civil laws that deal with marriage (custody, inheritance, etc.) can still apply to married couples of all stripes.
By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.
Nope. That is just more persecution fantasies from the religious right. Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being white or black or male or female; it is an intrinsic part of who you are, not something that is chosen.
[
Citation please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marriage is not an entitlement. The State shouldn't give people a marriage license; it is an antiquated and unnecessary. The State should instead give people a "marriage certificate" similar to a birth certificate so that way all of the preexisting civil laws that deal with marriage (custody, inheritance, etc.) can still apply to married couples of all stripes.
By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.
Nope. That is just more persecution fantasies from the religious right. Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being white or black or male or female; it is an intrinsic part of who you are, not something that is chosen.
[
Citation please.
The Citation does not exist for either side of the coin. There is evidence, but nothing that can directly prove one way or another.
For me and the LGBTQ people I associated with, it was about as much of a choice as me being white or having blue eyes. This is a personal anecdote, however, so don't feel compelled (Anyone, not just Cincy) to tell me that it is a personal anecdote.
Which is why I made the comment. While I personally agree that it is probably genetic (I have trouble believing anyone one choose a life of persecution) I do take umbrage when people claim it's an unquestionable fact, because it isn't.
And especially so when they compare it to skin color or gender, two things that are quite difficult to mask.
cincydooley wrote: Which is why I made the comment. While I personally agree that it is probably genetic (I have trouble believing anyone one choose a life of persecution) I do take umbrage when people claim it's an unquestionable fact, because it isn't.
By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.
Nope. That is just more persecution fantasies from the religious right. Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being white or black or male or female; it is an intrinsic part of who you are, not something that is chosen.
Citation please.
Certainly:
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." -Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007
"The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." -Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab, 2010 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403051)
The entire medical world now understands that human homosexuality, transsexuality, and heterosexuality to be a complex interplay between nature and nurture with the biological model as the cause. It isn't just waking up one day and saying, "You know what? I like dudes now."
The bottom line is this: If social conservatives who object to homosexuality can no longer say that they "choose" to be that way, that means homosexuals deserve equal protection under the law and therefore should be free to live without facing their disgusting bigotry. Groups like the Family Research Council (the people that plenty of anti-gay "research" in America) openly admit as much, saying that finding homosexuality to be intrinsic "would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true." Keep in mind that they have absolutely no evidence to contrary, they just want to treat gays like second-class citizens and strip their rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because they think the god they worship will give them bonus Heaven points for doing it.
"Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay."
@Silver
Pretty sure it was when I saw Ariel for the first time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @scooty - please keep in mind I don't disagree with you at all. I simply think in a discussion where everyone wants to claim religion is a bunch of superstitious hokem, it's a bit disingenuous, IMO, to categorically say homosexuality is genetic when we absolutely cannot prove that it is.
cincydooley wrote: "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay."
@Silver
Pretty sure it was when I saw Ariel for the first time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @scooty - please keep in mind I don't disagree with you at all. I simply think in a discussion where everyone wants to claim religion is a bunch of superstitious hokem, it's a bit disingenuous, IMO, to categorically say homosexuality is genetic when we absolutely cannot prove that it is.
Twin studies are methodically flawed because they rely on two false presumptions: twins are genetically the same and they are raised in equal environments
Twins do not have 100% exact copies of DNA, something geneticist have know for some time and your DNA is not stable, it mutates over the course of your life.
Did you pull that from a meta analysis cincy? Or did you find all 8? If it's either, could you link them/post/pm me the names do I can read them? They sound interesting
The most usual one is that "Its not natural. We don't see it in on the planet, or in nature."
This is how you can tell someone has never been outside, and how I can call 'citation needed!' whenever someone mentions that black people exist, 'cause I only see them on TV, and companies can do amazing things with CGI these days.
Never ever go into the animal comparison territory. It's terrible to go there. Problems:
a) There is no homosexuality among animals. There is homosexual behavior. This is a major difference. Teens who "try" the other gender during puberty don't necessarily become gay as a consequence.
b) If you use the animal comparison to proof that homosexuality is "natural", you basically say that every homosexual person in the world is homosexual for the sex alone - because that's why animals do it. Do you want to say that? If not, then don't use the comparison.
c) Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.
Twins do not have 100% exact copies of DNA, something geneticist have know for some time and your DNA is not stable, it mutates over the course of your life.
Actually, leading theories actually have to do with hormones while in the womb, especially since chromosomes and genes don't not create gender, hormones from the mother does. There have been studies which find that the more male offspring born by the mother, the higher chance the mother's body will suppress testosterone and lead to a change in the baby. Almost all the science right now is 'observational' and they are generating theories which can then be tested and proven/disproven via the scientific method. We are way off for that kind of stuff.
It is interesting because some of these studies have implications that there can only be homosexual males because the observed phenomenon only seems to apply to males, and does not apply to males born into large families of women or women born into large families of males, only Males born into families with multiple older brothers. Of course, if such a discovery was made where 'Male Homosexuality = Born, Female Homosexuality = Choice' the world would probably implode or something. (it would be in-line with male privilege and men would be quick to welcome gay men back into the club to accept male homosexuality but discredit female homosexuality)
There is also a 'Why' this happens which we wouldn't necessarily know and science would only tell us that it happens, and not 'WHY'. Churches usually reluctantly evolve to meet science and I suspect the major sects of the current religions will progress down the road.
Disclaimer: I am not saying I believe any of this but it is interesting to think 'what if...' in regards to if it is valid or not. It is some of the observational, peer-reviewed studies currently going on about the subject. Their findings are not trying to push an agenda, but people do take the results and quickly turn it to an agenda.
b) If you use the animal comparison to proof that homosexuality is "natural", you basically say that every homosexual person in the world is homosexual for the sex alone - because that's why animals do it. Do you want to say that? If not, then don't use the comparison.
If you want to use the animal comparison to proof that heterosexuality is "natural", you basically say that every heterosexual person in the world is heterosexual for sex alone - because that's why animals do it.
Is what you are saying by saying that Homosexuality isn't natural, but Heterosexuality is.
c) Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.
No we are not. Sociology of tendencies animals and humans are amazingly close. It is supreme arrogance to assume we are extremely distinct from the animal kingdom.
c) Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.
No we are not. Sociology of tendencies animals and humans are amazingly close. It is supreme arrogance to assume we are extremely distinct from the animal kingdom.
Did people take my idea and think I was being inconsiderate O.O
For my ethics and philosophy (No google, I don't mean SYPHILIUS) books I have gotten and read over. I can say that the only defense for someone minus the religious argument of course is the superiority idea and we don't see it in nature.
Yet.... We can see this completely proven false, we aren't superior to animals in terms of muscles, cleverness, speed. I know animals that could literally rip my head off, and chase me down and maim me. Or the gorilla that waits patiently and then tears my limbs off and uses me as a bat or something else. Yet we beat animals in intelligence. Yeah. Lets think about that. Lets see what humanity has contributed to earth. Pollution, war, famines, destruction, murder, climate change, extinction. If anything animals are far better than humans in every degree. So that shoots down superiority.
Now onto what is natural... On homoeroticism.
Because through out human history at least 15% of the human population has been gay or homosexual. I think its natures way of weeding out genetics.
Okay let me give you example of two societies.
One society is male dominated and its tribal, all the men are heterosexual. Every Few years all the men compete against each other to get a suitable wife or mate. So all the males are gone leaving the women and the older and very young folk by themselves to defend the tribe. Leaving it quite vulnerable to attack.
Then the second society male dominated again, but 15% of the men are homosexual.. Every few years like the other men, they all compete to get a suitable wife or mate. But instead of all the males leaving, the homosexual men stay behind to protect the tribe/home.
Which society is more stable?
The second one. Which one is the most well defended? The Second one.
Homosexuality is something natural and it happens to select groups of people. Its like natures way of booting people out of the genepool. This is both good and bad. Because have you seen most gay guys? With there massive masculinity. (If your gay and you want to stay in the genepool donate your sailors.)
I mean the Spartans were homoerotic, they didn't care they were warriors, The Knights of old were as well during the crusades. Roman Soldiers gayed it up during war, hell senators had sex regularly if there wives were away with other senators.. The Bloody french had orgies for crying out loud. Man homophobes make no sense to me as there has been homosexuality since well. The beginning of mammals.
Slarg232 wrote: Nevermind that something like 112 or 118 (Forget which) other mammal species on the planet have homosexuality.
Maybe it's Mammals. Mammals must be weird.......
Very few non-mammals have a penis. Even among other vertebrates it is quite uncommon. Insects have an analogous organ called an aedeagus (though in some rare cases the female has the analogous organ instead).
Sex becomes increasingly weird and unrecognizable among other species, with many being hermaphroditic. Even animals with similar organs can do things in a very different way. For the stuff of nightmares check out Traumatic Insemination (and yes, it also comes in 'gay')*.
Asherian Command wrote: Homosexuality is something natural and it happens to select groups of people. Its like natures way of booting people out of the genepool.
My head canon is that in pre-neolithic hunter-gatherer society, while all the men were out hunter-gathering, girls still needed someone to open pickle jars and take shoe shopping. Thus the GBFF was born out of necessity. Girls without a GBFF weren't able to eat pickles, and had crap shoes, so they all died out... That's how evolution works.
Sigvatr wrote: Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.
1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Sounds like characteristics of a human to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We're you sleeping in biology class during high school?
Sigvatr wrote: Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.
1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Sounds like characteristics of a human to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We're you sleeping in biology class during high school?
He was giving examples of arguments. Those aren't his actual arguments for humans not being animals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: Homosexuality left aside, I don't know if it'd be morally okay to laugh at the last two posts
Its okay. My post is a satire of many religious arguments against homosexuality or same sex marriage.
1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Sounds like characteristics of a human to me.
Oh, they certainly are. The problem is that they aren't sufficient. You could also use a broader definition - two legs, two arms, highly developed nerve system, likes to throw crap at people...looks fitting too, doesn't it? Not sufficient either, though.
Not going to get deep into it, just brought up the point because a lot of people make the false assumption that a human automatically is an animal because of shared biological characteristics while completely disregarding the vastly superior, and different, mental abilities. Especially in regards to relationships - which we're talking of right now
I could go further into semantic-nazi territory, e.g. by claiming that there is no arguing against homosexuality as it already exists. But alas, that'd be boring for all participants.
We're you sleeping in biology class during high school?
Sigvatr wrote: Oh, they certainly are. The problem is that they aren't sufficient. You could also use a broader definition - two legs, two arms, highly developed nerve system, likes to throw crap at people...looks fitting too, doesn't it? Not sufficient either, though.
Not going to get deep into it, just brought up the point because a lot of people make the false assumption that a human automatically is an animal because of shared biological characteristics while completely disregarding the vastly superior, and different, mental abilities. Especially in regards to relationships - which we're talking of right now
I could go further into semantic-nazi territory, e.g. by claiming that there is no arguing against homosexuality as it already exists. But alas, that'd be boring for all participants.
So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.
Sigvatr wrote: Not going to get deep into it, just brought up the point because a lot of people make the false assumption that a human automatically is an animal because of shared biological characteristics while completely disregarding the vastly superior, and different, mental abilities.
But a human being is an animal, sharing many characteristics with a number of animals from a wide range of the tree of life. You also seem to be ignoring that the similarity works both ways with animals sharing many "human" characteristics. It is why animal models are valid in a lot of both physiological and psychological studies.
So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.
I am not going to elaborate a lot further on this in this thread, sorry, as it's off-topic and was only used by myself to comment on the relationship part which is a good example for a big difference between how mankind and animals work. Humans and animals are definitely similar, some more, some less, and the main difference is the superior mental abilities humans have, especially in regards to controlling instincts / affection.
Humans are animals if you only look at strictly biological abilities. In order to define humans / animals, or rather the difference between them, you have to widen your scope.
So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.
I am not going to elaborate a lot further on this in this thread, sorry, as it's off-topic and was only used by myself to comment on the relationship part which is a good example for a big difference between how mankind and animals work. Humans and animals are definitely similar, some more, some less, and the main difference is the superior mental abilities humans have, especially in regards to controlling instincts / affection.
Humans are animals if you only look at strictly biological abilities. In order to define humans / animals, or rather the difference between them, you have to widen your scope.
But they are not actually significantly different in your 'relationship' area. You keep making statements which elude to a 'you can't compare to nature because humans are unique and above animals because X but those X you claim are very wrong. Sociology of humans and intelligence of humans exist in the animal kingdom and we are not significantly different so saying you can't compare to animals on those points makes that point invalid.
Supposedly 'superior mental abilities' and 'controlling instincts/affection' sounds like 'pray away the gay' talk which is basically the catholic churches position of 'It may be natural, but because we are superior and god said so, don't do it.'
sigvatyr quote" Not going to get deep into it, just brought up the point because a lot of people make the false assumption that a human automatically is an animal because of shared biological characteristics while completely disregarding the vastly superior, and different, mental abilities. Especially in regards to relationships - which we're talking of right now
" quote
What are you on about? Humans are animals, it's a fact, we are a member of the animal kingdom, we share a huge number of characteristics with other animals, and If you actually use your "superior mental abilities" you will realise we have inferior mental abilities to some other animal.
As well as science which has proven stuff like dolphins and some monkeys are cleverer than us, think about it, have other animals lived beyond there means in such a way that they end up killing themselves and wiping out all their species?
Any other animal purposely covers itself in ignorance so it can hear what it wants?
Humans are not intelligent on the most part.
Also, some animals are better at relationships to us, being loyal to one animal, no cheating/ divorce .e.t.c.
So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.
I am not going to elaborate a lot further on this in this thread, sorry, as it's off-topic and was only used by myself to comment on the relationship part which is a good example for a big difference between how mankind and animals work. Humans and animals are definitely similar, some more, some less, and the main difference is the superior mental abilities humans have, especially in regards to controlling instincts / affection.
Humans are animals if you only look at strictly biological abilities. In order to define humans / animals, or rather the difference between them, you have to widen your scope.
But Humans aren't better at controlling their instincts / affections.
Puppy Love / Infatuations / similar still exist. Murders are still commited un-premeditated, so there is loss of self control there, and last I checked, Murder is still happening all the time. If people miss meals, they get quite angry, same with sleep.
Also, if people are better at controlling their affections, why do Furries, Voraphiles, or S&M... ites...... exist?
Yes, two dogs will see each other on the street and start mating.....
.... but how is that different from two people meeting in a bar and having a one night stand?
The argument was that displaying homosexual behaviors and being gay are different things, and that it would be wrong to equate a male dog sexually mounting another male dog in a dominance display to the complexity of human sexuality. I think it is a very valid point, as human sexuality is fundamentally different than animal sexuality because humans have a sense of inviolate identity and concept of consequences that animals simply lack.
One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.
Also, if people are better at controlling their affections, why do Furries, Voraphiles, or S&M... ites...... exist?
Sexual perversions don't necessarily exist merely due to people just being unable to control their affections.
That's actually pretty much why they exist. A sexual "perversion" exists because people want to act on those affections and impulses. If people had some kind of weird complete control of their sexual urges, society would not be like it is today. There's a great dearth of porn out there about people thinking about sex, but then never acting on it.
Well maybe comedi-porn. Does that exist even? I've laughed at porn many times and I've definitely seen horror-porn out there, but is there a market for Seth Rogen in a porno?
One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.
Um, animals have social bondings and have animals who attempt rape all the time. Animals totally consent in sexual reproduction in many species, to try to categorize all animal sex as nothing but raw instinctual rape is absurd. Human relationships and sexuality is very comparable to the animal kingdom. all these attempts to say it is 'different' boil down to 'it is different because it is... ' with no actual evidence of it.
And there are animals who do same-sex social pairing for multiple reasons, like raising offspring, protection, social preference and sex is just one aspect of their relationship.
friendlycommissar wrote: An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.
I had two female dogs when we went to visit my brother and his girlfriend at her farm.
The farm dog came and greeted our dogs as dogs normally do. He then tried to mount one of them, but she sat down forcefully and growled at him. He turned to the other and mounted her.
How is that NOT a display of consent and no consent?
Slarg232 wrote: So what does a Human have that is vastly superior in mental abilities? We can't make any sort of counter claim unless you give us a few reasons you believe humans to be superior.
Humans have vastly superior problem solving skills compared to all other species. While other animals often depend on evolution to brute-force solutions for them over generations, humans are highly adaptable within their own life time, and can invent their way out of problems. Humans are probably the worlds first real super predator. While we might not have the big claws or agility of something like a tiger, tigers are no competition for humans, nothing is. Animals that compete with or are hunted by humans generally can't adapt fast enough, which is why many species are hunted to extinction. God help you if humans want your species dead.
The argument was that displaying homosexual behaviors and being gay are different things, and that it would be wrong to equate a male dog sexually mounting another male dog in a dominance display to the complexity of human sexuality. I think it is a very valid point, as human sexuality is fundamentally different than animal sexuality because humans have a sense of inviolate identity and concept of consequences that animals simply lack.
One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.
ummm... hate to break it to you, but plenty of animals are not only self aware and have feelings, memory, sex for fun, they are also capable of creating art/culture, learning new languages, and using modern tools. Animals also very much give consent... if you had any experience with them, you would know, because sometimes there are two "into it" animals, and sometimes one is literally fighting the other off... just because we humans cannot understand the language, does not mean the animals are not talking.
Also, if people are better at controlling their affections, why do Furries, Voraphiles, or S&M... ites...... exist?
Sexual perversions don't necessarily exist merely due to people just being unable to control their affections.
That's actually pretty much why they exist. A sexual "perversion" exists because people want to act on those affections and impulses. If people had some kind of weird complete control of their sexual urges, society would not be like it is today. There's a great dearth of porn out there about people thinking about sex, but then never acting on it.
Well maybe comedi-porn. Does that exist even? I've laughed at porn many times and I've definitely seen horror-porn out there, but is there a market for Seth Rogen in a porno?
Not really, people do act on affections and impulses when they go to have sex that is true. Why people to turn to sexual perversions themselves instead of just "normal sex" has to do a lot with how people approach sex, or their society does. For instance conservative/religious states in the US that are more repressive towards sex have higher usage of adult entertainment than less conservative/religious states. link
It isn't just about people and their sex drives.
Edit: Scientists basically that deal with real sexual perversions, including more dangerous ones like pedophilia say they can usually be traced back to things that occurred in childhood, and as one put it 'If our society was more open, and youngsters and parents felt comfortable talking with each other about sex, we could nip some of these problems in the bud. Instead, when we finally see them, we see them as criminals to be punished, not people with disorders that need to be treated.''
Yet.... We can see this completely proven false, we aren't superior to animals in terms of muscles, cleverness, speed. I know animals that could literally rip my head off, and chase me down and maim me. Or the gorilla that waits patiently and then tears my limbs off and uses me as a bat or something else. Yet we beat animals in intelligence. Yeah. Lets think about that. Lets see what humanity has contributed to earth. Pollution, war, famines, destruction, murder, climate change, extinction. If anything animals are far better than humans in every degree. So that shoots down superiority.
Actually, we have quite a lot going for us. Our manual dexterity is leagues above any other animal in existence. The way we can manipulate objects and the agility we can manipulate them with is incredibly unique. As for the impact that humanity has had on the planet, you could argue that any species that would develop to a level of sentience similar to our own would be capable of the same.
Now onto what is natural... On homoeroticism.
Because through out human history at least 15% of the human population has been gay or homosexual. I think its natures way of weeding out genetics.
Try 3%. And a 'nature's way of weeding out genetics' does not make sense, since these traits are being passed down anyway. There are hypothesis out there that suggest that homosexuality in family lines/units can actually present certain advantages, such as stronger avuncular qualities in homosexual men, as well as the suggestion that the same trait that produces homosexuality in males is also linked to increased fecundity in females.
Asherian Command wrote: For my ethics and philosophy (No google, I don't mean SYPHILIUS) books I have gotten and read over. I can say that the only defense for someone minus the religious argument of course is the superiority idea and we don't see it in nature.
Yet.... We can see this completely proven false, we aren't superior to animals in terms of muscles, cleverness, speed.
We are vastly superior to the entirety of the animal kingdom in regards to encephalization, the cognitive treatment of visual percepts and linguistic functions.
Fafnir wrote: Try 3%. And a 'nature's way of weeding out genetics' does not make sense, since these traits are being passed down anyway. There are hypothesis out there that suggest that homosexuality in family lines/units can actually present certain advantages, such as stronger avuncular qualities in homosexual men, as well as the suggestion that the same trait that produces homosexuality in males is also linked to increased fecundity in females.
Which is still a problematic explanation, since the gay's genes don't gain any advantage in increasing another individual's likelyhood of reproduction.
friendlycommissar wrote: One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.
This is the kind of confusion that happens when you reify legal categories. Giving consent is a social/linguistic act, and for the sake of sanity, large human societies tacked unto it a legal definition in order to more easily judge its infractions.
As long as you are capable of recognizing and ackowledging the ongoing actions of another agent, you are capable of giving consent. I don't see why beasts would a priori be incapable of doing so.
. Honestly cannot find any better reason.
.
There's only one person in this conversation who is actually and sincerely defending using the power of the state to deny people fundamental rights because he does not tolerate their difference. That person is you. If you want to define authoritarian in that way, then you just called yourself an authoritarian.
