Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Its Frazzled but I think you’re referring to moi

I'll stress here again : so far all the posters arguing "for" the Mormon side as such-- like Messrs. Frazell and Gen.Lee.Losing have already stated that they have no problem with the application of FULL rights to homosexual couples, which would include, presumably anyway ?-- access to adoption as well as the aforementioned deathbed access, monetary entitlements and responsibilities etc etc.

Correcto Friendo. Although I think believe a loving father and mother are better - due to their differing perspectives - two loving parents of the human persuasion are nearly as good. For kids who need loving parents, that will do nicely.

Bah! Sorry about that.

Still you almost keep being refered to as Jalfrezi so consider yourself lucky !

I pretty much agree with you there : Ideally a nice mixed pairing I think is the best way to raise any child. But I think a same sex couple is perfectly capable of raising a child in a loving and supportive enviroment. Indeed I would suggest that this scenario is likely to be much better than being raised in some state run home ( I have no idea how this works in the US so apologies otherwise here) or in some horrible home where the kid basically isn't wanted.

I pretty much agree with you there : Ideally a nice mixed pairing I think is the best way to raise any child. But I think a same sex couple is perfectly capable of raising a child in a loving and supportive enviroment. Indeed I would suggest that this scenario is likely to be much better than being raised in some state run home ( I have no idea how this works in the US so apologies otherwise here) or in some horrible home where the kid basically isn't wanted.

Oh big time! Even a good home is not nearly good enough.

Ahtman wrote:

McCain believes this is an example of torture. It is.

focusedfire wrote:I understand the concept of tyrrany of the masses is wrong. But, its a democratic process. Is tyrrany of the minority any better? Where a small group gets to ride rough shod over the will of the majority propped up by the court and a heavily armed government. Sounds like a way of starting a lot of civil unrest and strengthening an already too powerful governmental structure.

Where is the “ride rough shod”? If the majority doesn’t like gay marriage, they can just not get gay married. Seriously. If a gay couple down the street gets married it impacts my marriage how much? Not at all.

focusedfire wrote:Give the religious right what they want. Support the move to have marraige made a 100 percent purely religious term, instead of the question mark it is now due to court cases questioning the meaning. Once that happens by federal law the term marriage would have to be pulled off of the documentation that the government hands out. With new terminology the religious right has no legal leg to stand on in the opposition of Gay rights to benefits.

Two points:
1. Really? Are you 100% certain that all the religious right wants is the right to the word? You honestly don’t think that if the word were removed from the law, that homophobic religious groups wouldn’t still oppose equal rights for homosexuals?
2. How much time work and money would be involved in editing every federal, state, and local statute which uses the word “marriage” or “married” with “Civil Union” and “civilly united”?

But to challenge your premise, there’s honestly no way to make marriage a 100% religious term. The word has a secular meaning, and different religious meanings, even if you remove it from the law. Even if the answer to my question 1 (above) is “yes”, and all religious right groups want is ownership of and exclusive definitional rights to the word, they still can’t have it. Other religious groups use the word too, and many of them are perfectly happy applying it to gay couples. If we give exclusive rights to define the word “marriage” to one religion, or church, or group of churches, then we are violating the First amendment by giving that religious group preferential treatment over others.

focusedfire wrote:AND while your waiting for the terminology change, you found a new temple of Delphi, Zues or some other occult clap trap that Gay Marraige is a part of its beleif structure.

Psst. When you’re trying to defend a religious group’s position and point of view, it sabotages your argument to denigrate other religions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you pay taxes the you should get the equal benefit, but not at the expence of violating a groups constitutional right.

Constitutional right to what? To own a word? To have their definition of “marriage” protected by law while my religion’s definition is legally ruled inferior? I think you have your argument backwards.

sebster wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Oh yeah, to Sebster......you say it will come full circle and my argument is for naught......PROVE IT. Whats the harm doing it the way I suggest if your going to win.

I did prove it would come full circle. If use of the word ‘marriage’ is given over to churches and you allow them to marry whoever they want, some will marry gay people. At which point the word marriage will be used to describe gay marriages, and the tradition of ‘marriage = straight folk’ will be lost anyway. Print everything in capitals if you want, you still haven’t made any response to that point.

The harm in doing it that way is that it opposed a perfectly acceptable system that was already in place.

You suggest this argument is over protecting the meaning of a word and therfor has no merit. It's a word with a meaning and a belief behind it. Such words like freedom, the name of your country, God. History shows that people are willing to fight, even to the death, over words with a belief behind them. I meerly tried to offer up a solution that circumvents the likelyhood of the fight.

And you keep pretending it is just about the word. If that was the case there would be defence of marriage groups out there putting forward their own props, ones that allowed gay civil unions. Or ones that gave everyone civil unions, and let churches decide who they wanted to marry.

Except they don’t propose anything of the sort. They just oppose gay marriage systems that come along, using whatever justification seems to fit this time.

And as to your challenge AFTER I'd Signed off........how very Chivalrous. And the answer to your challenge, JohnHwang pretty much summed it up. You bore me and my HOT GAY lover wants cuddle time.

One of the good things about the internet is that comments stay up forever. So that you could read that message next time you logged on. Which you did. And then you’ve still failed to provide a reference to anyone, anywhere, forcing a church to marry people it didn’t want to marry. Which means your claim is still without any merit. But you’ll go on believing it, because you want to believe that very bad things will happen if gay marriage is allowed.

Frazzled wrote:I do believe John is an attorney, and is thus fully versed in the concept of stare decisis. Thank you for provided your wise insight though Sebster

Given the level of legal knowledge exhibited by I find it very hard to believe that John is an attorney. He mischaracterised a fundamental statute. He believes the courts are wildly unpredictable, and thinks landmark cases overturning precedent somehow prove that. If he’s a lawyer… well.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, because precedent can never be overturned

Yeah, and landmark cases heralded with years of political debate will overturn previous precedent. These cases are heralded with years of political debate, and multiple decisions on similar issues. There is no debate on forcing churches to marry people they don’t want to. In all similar areas courts have consistently ruled that freedom of religion allows churches to do things that would be deemed unfair discrimination in other areas.

Meanwhile, you argued that is was a guess whenever anything went to court. See the difference?

Yes I made a response. You make a false claim to proof with out the action to back it up. If you win by doing what I suggest, then do it. I think you don't want to do it because it would also prove that I was right. It seems as if you want to continue the argument instead of seeking a resolution.

You feel the current system is acceptable, The system that looks to be a legal fight without end? Hhhmmm

As to civil union initiatives. Check out my home state of Colorados Domestic Partnership benefits and responsibilities Act, and this site.... interfaithallianceco.org/domesticpartnership.html

Personally, I think your credibility is shot. You lost it when you made the medeaval history comment. I replied that I make my living off of the medeaval and renaissance era and challenged you to match my knowledge. A challenge you convieniently side stepped with the statement that I was "making false claims of authority". Dude, You Don't Know Me. To make that assertion without any knowledge of me, proves my point. I don't have to justify who I am but, I do back up my statements. 1995 I got involved in a small living history group and some reenactment groups. In some of these groups there is so much misinformation that you start researching and eventually find the people and source material that is fairly accurate. I started off as part of the performance fight core where I was first introduced to the medeaval martial arts. As time went by I became increasingly involved in performing, due to age and injuries spent a season or two as a story teller(a lot of period research in those days). Was over the course of time, introduced to people who knew much more than I did and still know more than I do now.I try to get time to learn more from them but with so many irons in the fire its difficult. About 9 years ago I went full time with this and now spend 11 months out of the year travelling to festival and re-enactment events. 5 years ago got tired of the unstable income of performing and started on a buisiness. No, I will not tell you which or were. Not inviting one as negative as you to my both home and place of business. I don't think that I'm the first to feel that your statements have come across as fairly arrogant and definitely detrimental to your cause. Sure your not a closet conservative on some machiavellian scheme to hurt gay rights.

As far as forcing a church. To use your own example of the civil rights fight(and that of many gay groups statement that civil unions are like sitting in the back of the bus). What happened to both public and private buisinesses and orginzations after the repeal of Jim Crow. They were eventually forced to comply due to that there is almost no facet of american life where the tax dollar isn't involved, thus making it an open spot for litigation under anti- discrimination.

As far as the importance of a word, once again to the race fight this country went through. There is a word that means fool but, with misuse, has become wrongly percieved in defintion as having a racist meaning. We as a polite society have for the most part abandoned that word. Your argument is that the word is misused. Whether, it is or isn't, there is a majority perception in this nation that it is religious in context. Maybe we as a polite society should just drop the word.

Mannahnin, You falsly think that my basis in this argument is in support of a given religion. Its all occult clap trap. But its their right to indulge in such. My personal beleifs do not allow me to elevate one structure over the other. I'm talking about what is fundamentally right and fair. So what if it costs, like this country will ever pay off all its debts. Besides, it'll create jobs.

Why would your religions be inferior? If it is a religious term then all religions would have access to it.

If the term isn't religious then why are Priests and clergy allowed to sign off in place of a Magistrate or Justice of the Peace?

Maybe we should just take that right away from the churches?

Is this thing still going on, what the heck are you talking about.

Orson Scott Card is a Mormon.

focusedfire wrote:Why would your religions be inferior? If it is a religious term then all religions would have access to it.

The religious groups funding the opposition to gay marriage are trying to enforce their preferred definition of marriage. If we sanction their definition by law, as you suggested (“give them what they want”) then you’re elevating their religious belief/dogma over that of religions which define marriage differently, via the force of law. That’s a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Which religions are you referencing, specifically? Wouldn't a religion having a stance on marriage further support the simple definition that the term is religious. As such has no legitamate use in secular law? You then leave the word behind and move on as each religion is free to determine their meaning and definition without government involment because the word will have no legal use or carry weight in a court of law. To declare the word religious doesn't violate the first ammendment, but rather supports it. It, also, soesn't violate freedom of speech. Not banning the word. Just defining it as a governmental and tax payer no-no in that tax dollars will not be spent on it.

focusedfire wrote:Which religions are you referencing, specifically?

Jedi, Pastafarianism, and the Church of the Subgenius of course.

Ahtman you make me smile, Thank you. (off-topic) I attempt to return the favour, Have you checked out the quite interesting thread. Thats where I'm headed before logging off.

Good eve everyone

All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster and bless His Noodly Appendage!

Tacobake wrote:Is this thing still going on, what the heck are you talking about.

Orson Scott Card is a Mormon.

As far as I can tell, it's basically about whether people are bigots or not. Apparently, there are some who think that having a legal distinction between a union between homosexuals and heterosexuals is a violation of certain basic principles, particularly that one where we treat people the same. Which it may be, but the consitution really doesn't cover this under any of the current civil rights jurisprudence. The others want to make it very, very clear that they love gay people, don't hate them even the tiniest little bit, but they don't think it's proper to call what they do "marriage." Oh, and they're also very angry that people would think holding the position that the law should treat one class of people better than another could ever, possibly be interpreted as bigotry. And then there are some of the old "marriage is for the churches and the state should get out completely" type nonsense.

Essentially, it's one side pretending they have a solid legal argument, and another trying very hard to not look in any way intolerant and not really pulling it off.

Frazzled wrote:
You're full of it Dogma. The pro-marriage for everyone crowd is attempting to change the definition. Thats fine. Do it. But attacking others who may or may not disgree with you-calling them bigots does nothing but lose support of the moderates.

I'm done with this thread. People can't have a reasoned debate without being called bigots then why even have OffTopic?

I'm not attacking anyone Frazz, you're the one assuming that. I'm stating a fact. The literal definition of bigotry is: the assumption of primacy regarding one's own opinion. Literally the belief that no one else can act in any way but the one which the individual defines as correct. Creating a legislative definition of marriage which excludes a minority population without rational cause is bigotry. However, that does not mean that person who holds such an opinion is a bigot.

I know plenty of people who hold bigoted opinions, but I would not call them bigots. Non-reflective perhaps, but never bigots.

Edit: clarity.

Frazzled wrote:Just a few rejoinders then I’m done:

Yep no characterization of the anti-marriage side as bigots at all:

I'm not convinced you're a bigot. You're experimenting with a lot of arguments to justify opposing gay marriage, and most of them suffer from bizarre prioritisation (favouring a definition over human rights, for instance) but you're not necessarily a bigot.

Here, here. To each his own. You get all kinds of slogans, arguments, and mantras but when you dig really deep it still boils down to homophopia. The generation before ours was race and this is just a new segment in our society to single out as being not"like us".

Except that basically what you are saying is that heterosexual love, and by extension heterosexual marriage, is superior to homosexual love. There's a short jump from that position to homophobia and bigotry.

And, apparently, imposing that definition on the rest of the country. Which is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

None of those quotes characterize anyone as a bigot. They describe opinions as bigoted, but not the person who holds them as a bigot. There is an unbelievably profound difference.

focusedfire wrote:I understand the concept of tyrrany of the masses is wrong. But, its a democratic process. Is tyrrany of the minority any better? Where a small group gets to ride rough shod over the will of the majority propped up by the court and a heavily armed government. Sounds like a way of starting a lot of civil unrest and strengthening an already too powerful governmental structure.

For something to be a tyranny or the majority or minority, there has to be tyranny. It’s a real stretch to claim tyranny when gay marriage doesn’t impose anything on anyone that doesn’t want a gay marriage.

This entire argument is about hurt feelings and takes an unecessarily advessarial approach, if it had been approached logically it would have been over years ago.

Except what we’ve seen so far is people complaining about getting oppressed, without anything behind it. Complaining that they’ve been called bigoted, and then citing comments that do no such thing. Fraz’s opening post is the classic example, much ado about oppression of Mormons, and then a list of people on the internet talking about boycotts.

And no, approaching this logically won’t stop the issue, because you can’t reasonably talk someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. You have to get to the root cause of their beliefs.

focusedfire wrote:Yes I made a response. You make a false claim to proof with out the action to back it up. If you win by doing what I suggest, then do it. I think you don't want to do it because it would also prove that I was right. It seems as if you want to continue the argument instead of seeking a resolution.

No, I made a self contained argument. I took your proposed system and followed it to it’s logical conclusion. I stated each step clearly, and you are yet to challenge any one of those steps.

You feel the current system is acceptable, The system that looks to be a legal fight without end? Hhhmmm

No, I just believe the process to get to the end won’t be helped by giving pretend legitimacy to false arguments on the grounds of playing nice. If someone is willing to believe that churches will be forced to marry gay people, there is ultimately no point in addressing them on those grounds. What needs to be addressed is why they’d be willing to believe something so silly.

Personally, I think your credibility is shot. You lost it when you made the medeaval history comment. I replied that I make my living off of the medeaval and renaissance era and challenged you to match my knowledge. A challenge you convieniently side stepped with the statement that I was "making false claims of authority". Dude, You Don't Know Me. To make that assertion without any knowledge of me, proves my point. I don't have to justify who I am but, I do back up my statements.

Ah dude, false claim to authority doesn’t question the authority of the source. False claim to authority dismisses any argument built purely on the reputation of the source, regardless of the quality of the source. For instance, if I was to say ‘the economy is doomed because Krugman says its doomed’ it would be a false claim to authority. Krugman is a leading economic authority, and the economy may or may not be doomed, but that is irrelevant. What matters is my argument consisted of nothing but a false claim to authority, and therefore was invalid.

Same with your claim earlier.

As far as forcing a church. To use your own example of the civil rights fight(and that of many gay groups statement that civil unions are like sitting in the back of the bus). What happened to both public and private buisinesses and orginzations after the repeal of Jim Crow. They were eventually forced to comply due to that there is almost no facet of american life where the tax dollar isn't involved, thus making it an open spot for litigation under anti- discrimination.

Except the privacy allowed to the churches under the first amendment has extremely strong precedent. Which has been mentioned a lot of times now.

As far as the importance of a word, once again to the race fight this country went through. There is a word that means fool but, with misuse, has become wrongly percieved in defintion as having a racist meaning. We as a polite society have for the most part abandoned that word. Your argument is that the word is misused. Whether, it is or isn't, there is a majority perception in this nation that it is religious in context. Maybe we as a polite society should just drop the word.

A word leaving polite conversation isn’t really the same thing as denying rights to a minority group, though, is it?

Frazzled wrote:You're right. I'm not a moderate, even though I said I supported the rights of gays to marry, even though I put forth a Constitutional argument on why the US Con already protected gays in this area and would be used to strike down any such legislation. But I'm not a moderate.

Which is invalid, by the way. The 14th amendment would not apply to marriage as marriage itself is not property; but a contract which governs property rights. Plus, it is not something which is governed by Federal Law, and so is not an intrinsic property of US citizenship.

Polonius wrote:As far as I can tell, it's basically about whether people are bigots or not. Apparently, there are some who think that having a legal distinction between a union between homosexuals and heterosexuals is a violation of certain basic principles, particularly that one where we treat people the same. Which it may be, but the consitution really doesn't cover this under any of the current civil rights jurisprudence. The others want to make it very, very clear that they love gay people, don't hate them even the tiniest little bit, but they don't think it's proper to call what they do "marriage." Oh, and they're also very angry that people would think holding the position that the law should treat one class of people better than another could ever, possibly be interpreted as bigotry. And then there are some of the old "marriage is for the churches and the state should get out completely" type nonsense.

Essentially, it's one side pretending they have a solid legal argument, and another trying very hard to not look in any way intolerant and not really pulling it off.

Sort of. The anti-gay marriage side tried to make the discussion about bigotry, but they hit a brick wall because no-one ever actually called anyone a bigot. Your post is probably the closest anyone has come to implying someone must be bigoted, funnily enough.

Meanwhile, until very recently no-one’s attempted a legal argument for gay marriage. I don’t know if this 14th amendment argument has legs or not, but it hasn’t really been the substance of most of the thread. Mostly it’s just been that gay people ought to have the right to marry, and from there anti-gay marriage folk have been suggesting reasons why not.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:As far as I can tell, it's basically about whether people are bigots or not. Apparently, there are some who think that having a legal distinction between a union between homosexuals and heterosexuals is a violation of certain basic principles, particularly that one where we treat people the same. Which it may be, but the consitution really doesn't cover this under any of the current civil rights jurisprudence. The others want to make it very, very clear that they love gay people, don't hate them even the tiniest little bit, but they don't think it's proper to call what they do "marriage." Oh, and they're also very angry that people would think holding the position that the law should treat one class of people better than another could ever, possibly be interpreted as bigotry. And then there are some of the old "marriage is for the churches and the state should get out completely" type nonsense.

Essentially, it's one side pretending they have a solid legal argument, and another trying very hard to not look in any way intolerant and not really pulling it off.

Sort of. The anti-gay marriage side tried to make the discussion about bigotry, but they hit a brick wall because no-one ever actually called anyone a bigot. Your post is probably the closest anyone has come to implying someone must be bigoted, funnily enough.

Meanwhile, until very recently no-one’s attempted a legal argument for gay marriage. I don’t know if this 14th amendment argument has legs or not, but it hasn’t really been the substance of most of the thread. Mostly it’s just been that gay people ought to have the right to marry, and from there anti-gay marriage folk have been suggesting reasons why not.

Wow, well, I haven't actually been, you know, reading the posts. I've been seeing a woman whose a queer rights activist, so I've been getting a lot of this debate as it is. Well, I think the bigot thing was pretty heavily implied, and pretty artlessly ducked. I think that it's hard to find a really good reason to oppose full gay marriage without at some point admitting that you don't think gay couples should enjoy as preferred a status. And it's hard to argue that wanting lesser rights or respect for one class of people over another isn't, at least a little bit, based on fear or hate. I guess I just wish more people would be honest. I don't see the problem with saying "I have no opposition to full gay rights, but I have some personal concerns, distaste, or opposition to that lifestyle and I'm not comfortable in endorsing it as validly as traditional marriage." I mean, I see why people don't' say that (because some guy will attack them as even bigots, to be sure), but it'd be more honest than what's often said.

focusedfire wrote:Which religions are you referencing, specifically? Wouldn't a religion having a stance on marriage further support the simple definition that the term is religious. As such has no legitamate use in secular law? You then leave the word behind and move on as each religion is free to determine their meaning and definition without government involment because the word will have no legal use or carry weight in a court of law. To declare the word religious doesn't violate the first ammendment, but rather supports it.

The fundamental issue is that marriage the legal institution is not at all related to marriage the religious construct.

When you get married you apply to the State for a marriage license which must the then be signed by an agent of the state; a judge, sea captain, or member of the clergy. None of these agents are required to sign the license, and indeed, many clergymen will refuse to do so.

Now, if you are married in a church, you also receive a marriage certificate. A document with no legal weight that essentially serves as a tangible representation of your union in the eyes of your chosen lord. Churches throughout the US are free to issue marriage certificates as they please. They're kind of like certificates of participation for grown-ups.

When you ban the use of the term marriage in association with homosexual legal unions you have essentially formally recognized the sanctity of the religious union of straight couples, while refusing to do the same for homosexual couples, without any grounding in secular reasoning. Essentially, there is no possible line of reasoning which can justify the categorical separation without entering into matters of faith.

You could remove marriage from the legal lexicon, as we both have suggested, but to do so brings up a large number of complications, as Sebster has suggested, such that doing so would require a law to the effect of: all use of the term marriage within a legal context is heretofore replaced with therm 'civil union'. Something which would doubtlessly attract just as much flack as the current debate.

sebster wrote:
Meanwhile, until very recently no-one’s attempted a legal argument for gay marriage. I don’t know if this 14th amendment argument has legs or not, but it hasn’t really been the substance of most of the thread. Mostly it’s just been that gay people ought to have the right to marry, and from there anti-gay marriage folk have been suggesting reasons why not.

It doesn't. The 14th amendment dictates that no citizen shall have his rights supplanted by State legislation, but marriage is not a right in the sense which the amendment discusses the idea. What's more, the 5th amendment, which is taken as the right to property to which Fraz was referring in his argument, only specifies that no one shall be denied property by due process of the law. Which would prevent the State of California from annulling existing homosexual marriages, but not keep it from refusing to underwrite new ones.

Polonius wrote:Wow, well, I haven't actually been, you know, reading the posts. I've been seeing a woman whose a queer rights activist, so I've been getting a lot of this debate as it is. Well, I think the bigot thing was pretty heavily implied, and pretty artlessly ducked. I think that it's hard to find a really good reason to oppose full gay marriage without at some point admitting that you don't think gay couples should enjoy as preferred a status. And it's hard to argue that wanting lesser rights or respect for one class of people over another isn't, at least a little bit, based on fear or hate. I guess I just wish more people would be honest. I don't see the problem with saying "I have no opposition to full gay rights, but I have some personal concerns, distaste, or opposition to that lifestyle and I'm not comfortable in endorsing it as validly as traditional marriage." I mean, I see why people don't' say that (because some guy will attack them as even bigots, to be sure), but it'd be more honest than what's often said.

Ah, I had assumed you were at least skimming the thread.

Anyhow, I can’t speak for anyone else but I never meant to imply that someone must be bigoted to oppose gay marriage. I listed a bunch of other reasons earlier, including opposing any socially liberal cause and having a general distaste of homosexuality as a result of religious upbringing (not disliking anyone for it, but disliking the idea enough that you don’t want it embraced in law). Personally, I think those two explain more opposition than real, honest to goodness bigotry.

I agree though, that’s it hard to argue reduced legal rights based on those grounds. However, I don’t think they’re necessarily being dishonest in making any of those other claims, they’re just predisposed to believe something that gives legitimacy to their belief, even if that argument is pretty obviously silly.

Dogma, to argue that the two aren't related is to completely deny that a large part of the law is also perception. Currently there is a perception by more than 50% in this country that the two are related. It's why this thread is ten pages strong. Supreme Court Justices make their decisions based on their perception of the evidence and the law.

Your side of the fence wishes to "enlighten" the masses of this country. What if they don't want to be "enlighted". The current path of your side is reminisant of how the Christiansviewed the natives of the new world. Your argument goes against the grain of right to choose.

You continue to attempt to state that their would be a double standard. Not so if their is only one, legal, non- religious standard. Your own description " sanctity of religious union for straight couples, while refusing to do the same for homosexual couples." The word sanctity from sanctify is a purely religious tem(check the wikipedia entry) and your argument is that there should be state mandated sanctification of both groups. Which "is" State madated religious acceptance. I'm saying no state mandated sanctification. If I had my way In God we trust wouldn't be on our currency.

And church documentation is given legal weight and why Annulements are allowed as evidence in divorce courts. You also missed the point that the priest is allowed to act as the agent and if he wishes can sign the document. BTW Those Church marriage certificates do carry legal weight, especially due to that quite a few churches have a notary on hand to witnes and stamp them.

As to wether there would be as much flak with the new terminology, I sincerely doubt it. Marraige is a romantic notion that fires the imaginations of young fems. Contractual Civil Union, Its kinda hard to get passionate about legal jargon. Its why Harlequin romances are always on the best sellers list and the Oxford or Harvard law dictionaries sell to only a select.

Do you really think that you can throw words like homophobic about without implying bigotry? If some one has an opinion, its based usually on their beliefs. A person is defined in large part by those beliefs(personal moral code). Your side has been saying it, only with diqualifiers so you don't get in trouble. It seems like you want to change peoples beliefs(christians call it converting) a very tricky thing and implies a level of hubris(that you know better). I have my idea, have campained for it vigorously hoping to see a movement toward an accord. But, in the end like every other opinion set forward some will find it valid, some will find it brown&stinky, but the opinion is my right, as your opinion is your right. I offer to you that we agree to disagree.

Sebster, before I reply, a quick off-topic question. Do you support Hate crime legislation?

focusedfire wrote:Dogma, to argue that the two aren't related is to completely deny that a large part of the law is also perception. Currently there is a perception by more than 50% in this country that the two are related. It's why this thread is ten pages strong. Supreme Court Justices make their decisions based on their perception of the evidence and the law.

If the perception is really that religious marriage is tacit to legal marriage, then there is something very wrong in this country which has little to do with debate about homosexual unions.

focusedfire wrote:
Your side of the fence wishes to "enlighten" the masses of this country. What if they don't want to be "enlighted". The current path of your side is reminisant of how the Christiansviewed the natives of the new world. Your argument goes against the grain of right to choose.

No, it doesn't, not at all. Per my opinion the state could not categorically refuse to marry a homosexual couple. It has no bearing at all on the religious traditions of any church which can choose to bless, or not bless, any marriage (in the legal sense) as they see fit. Indeed, at this moment there is nothing at all the state can do to stop people from getting married (per the blessing in the form of a marriage certificate) in a church, so the idea that legalizing gay marriage would somehow devalue a given faith is absurd.

focusedfire wrote:
You continue to attempt to state that their would be a double standard. Not so if their is only one, legal, non- religious standard. Your own description " sanctity of religious union for straight couples, while refusing to do the same for homosexual couples." The word sanctity from sanctify is a purely religious tem(check the wikipedia entry) and your argument is that there should be state mandated sanctification of both groups. Which "is" State madated religious acceptance. I'm saying no state mandated sanctification. If I had my way In God we trust wouldn't be on our currency.

The problem is that the religious term is written into law such that you would have to either change every law in which the word 'marriage' was featured, or offer a blanket concession by which the term 'civil union' was equated to 'marriage'; leaving us in the same place. Incidentally, the word sanctify, while religious in origin, does not have to be used in explicitly religious contexts. Which is to say that my argument has nothing to do with state mandated religious acceptance.

focusedfire wrote:
And church documentation is given legal weight and why Annulements are allowed as evidence in divorce courts. You also missed the point that the priest is allowed to act as the agent and if he wishes can sign the document. BTW Those Church marriage certificates do carry legal weight, especially due to that quite a few churches have a notary on hand to witnes and stamp them.

Ah, I see the problem here, marriage licenses carry legal weight and are issued by the state. That same document also features a segment labeled the 'Certificate of Marriage', which acts as the actual signatory component for the validation of the marriage. Churches keep notaries on hand to witness the Clergyman's signature of those state documents in his duly delegated role as an agent of the state in such instances. The marriage certificate is a completely separate document, issued by many churches (nominally the more liberal ones), which is unrelated to a marriage license.

focusedfire wrote:
As to wether there would be as much flak with the new terminology, I sincerely doubt it. Marraige is a romantic notion that fires the imaginations of young fems. Contractual Civil Union, Its kinda hard to get passionate about legal jargon. Its why Harlequin romances are always on the best sellers list and the Oxford or Harvard law dictionaries sell to only a select.

Trust me, if there were a major initiative to remove the word 'marriage' from the legal system there would be even more irate people than there already are.

focusedfire wrote:
Do you really think that you can throw words like homophobic about without implying bigotry? If some one has an opinion, its based usually on their beliefs. A person is defined in large part by those beliefs(personal moral code).

The difference between a bigot, and a person holding bigoted opinions is that the latter is capable of change, while the former is not.

If someone told me that I held a bigoted opinion I would reflect on the comment, and decide for myself if I could reasonably deny the allegation. At which point I might make an effort to change my ways, or I might not. After all, holding a bigoted opinion isn't the end of the world, its just another part of life.

If someone called me a bigot, I would probably just dismiss it. On one hand because it implies that people are somehow discreet entities. And on the other because, if I really were a bigot, my self-assurance would prevent me from meaningfully reflecting on my beliefs to begin with.

focusedfire wrote:
Your side has been saying it, only with diqualifiers so you don't get in trouble. It seems like you want to change peoples beliefs(christians call it converting) a very tricky thing and implies a level of hubris(that you know better). I have my idea, have campained for it vigorously hoping to see a movement toward an accord. But, in the end like every other opinion set forward some will find it valid, some will find it brown&stinky, but the opinion is my right, as your opinion is your right. I offer to you that we agree to disagree.

I've never claimed to know better, only that my position has the luxury of requiring nothing from the other side but the maintenance of the separation between church and state.

focusedfire wrote:A person is defined in large part by those beliefs(personal moral code).

A persons beliefs and a moral code are not the same thing.

focusedfire wrote:It seems like you want to change peoples beliefs(christians call it converting)

Conversion is a little more specific then that, and at the same time, not a good enough definition becuase "christians" don't agree on everything or what everything means. If they did, there wouldn't be at least 6 different denominations within 5 miles of where I am at the moment. Try not to speak for "christians" when there isn't a singular world view.

focusedfire wrote:I have my idea, have campained for it vigorously hoping to see a movement toward an accord. But, in the end like every other opinion set forward some will find it valid, some will find it brown&stinky, but the opinion is my right, as your opinion is your right. I offer to you that we agree to disagree.

I'm not sure relativism is the best argument for the denial of equality in treatment. Actually I'm sure it isn't.

focusedfire wrote:

Your side of the fence wishes to "enlighten" the masses of this country. What if they don't want to be "enlighted". The current path of your side is reminisant of how the Christiansviewed the natives of the new world. Your argument goes against the grain of right to choose.

I'm curious about this. What exactly do you think Dogma's side of the fence wishes to enlighten the masses about? By that, what do you see as the belief that he's trying to convert you to?

Do you really think that you can throw words like homophobic about without implying bigotry? If some one has an opinion, its based usually on their beliefs. A person is defined in large part by those beliefs(personal moral code). Your side has been saying it, only with diqualifiers so you don't get in trouble. It seems like you want to change peoples beliefs(christians call it converting) a very tricky thing and implies a level of hubris(that you know better). I have my idea, have campained for it vigorously hoping to see a movement toward an accord. But, in the end like every other opinion set forward some will find it valid, some will find it brown&stinky, but the opinion is my right, as your opinion is your right. I offer to you that we agree to disagree.

Beliefs can be judged. Many people believed that women didn't have the wherewithal to vote, many people still believe in astrologers and what not. If you hold a belief that is hurtful to others, then yes, I think it needs to be examined.

For the record, I'm willing to throw down a lot less politely than Dogma on this issue, so I have no problem calling a spade a spade. I think that if you have a strong distaste for homosexuality, for whatever reason, that's fine. I think a lot of people do, even those that support rights. I'm a huge supporter of gay rights, but I'd still prefer kids that were straight, you know what I'm saying?

Distaste, or dislike, or preference for traditional families, or whatever you call it are not bad beliefs. Acting on those beliefs, to the extent that it hurts others, that becomes a more hateful act. It's acting for your own betterment at the expense of another, something that is usually not a morally good act.

I'm always leery of reaching back to the Civil Rights movement to find grist for the gay rights mill. They're not quite the same, although all evidence points to homosexuality being an immutable characteristic inherent at birth. We can't prove it yet, but in a generation half of this country is going to end up looking pretty silly, and I'm gonna guess it's not the liberal half. Still, many people honestly and thoroughly believed that it was God's will for there to be segregation (or slavery, going back further). Keep this in mind: the Bible spends a lot more time talking about slavery, and how it's to be regulated, then it does sodomy.

Finally, I don't grant the premise that attempting to change beliefs is an arrogant thing that should not be done. It happens all the time! People do change their minds. Again, to reach into the way back machine, 50 years ago Obama would have had a hard time getting civil service job, even in Northern states. Now he's president. Look at the polling data on Bush, and the what people believed about WMDs in Iraq. Facts change, circumstances change, and yes, opinions can change. If you are saying there are tenets of faith that do not change, i agree, but find me a religion in which "not lettin' gays marry" is a fundamental tenet. Yes, encouraging family life is usually high up there, but definitions and practices change.

I'm always leery of reaching back to the Civil Rights movement to find grist for the gay rights mill. They're not quite the same, although all evidence points to homosexuality being an immutable characteristic inherent at birth. We can't prove it yet, but in a generation half of this country is going to end up looking pretty silly, and I'm gonna guess it's not the liberal half.

*I’m just fine with that if true, as I am a supporter on this issue. If I can’t have my way then legal marriage is ok to moi.

*However that statement had me thinking. What is the future of the US. Outside of Western Europe and North America the rest of the world is pretty conservative. There are elements in Europe now gaining ground that could swing Europe extremely conservative culturally. I’d proffer that we don’t have a clue how the next 50 years are going to turn out.

Frazzled wrote:

I'm always leery of reaching back to the Civil Rights movement to find grist for the gay rights mill. They're not quite the same, although all evidence points to homosexuality being an immutable characteristic inherent at birth. We can't prove it yet, but in a generation half of this country is going to end up looking pretty silly, and I'm gonna guess it's not the liberal half.

*I’m just fine with that if true, as I am a supporter on this issue. If I can’t have my way then legal marriage is ok to moi.

*However that statement had me thinking. What is the future of the US. Outside of Western Europe and North America the rest of the world is pretty conservative. There are elements in Europe now gaining ground that could swing Europe extremely conservative culturally. I’d proffer that we don’t have a clue how the next 50 years are going to turn out.

well, I was referring to the current 14th amendment jurisprudence which tends to strike down laws based on "immutable" characteristics: race, nationality, legitimacy. It is possible that it could be proved that homosexuality is equally immutable, and thus there could be an interesting legal fight there. Maybe 40 years is a better estimate: 20 to find the gay genes, 10 to wait for a good case, and 10 more to fight it's way to the Court.

As for world wide conservativism: well, there's the simple truth that conservatives simply have more kids, and so are likely to keep spawning more conservatives. True in the US, true world wide.