Homosexual marriage

[Count Comfect]

Lief: I do find the term somewhat insulting, but by this point I'm used to it from other discussions (not with you ) and I'm not Christian. But so long as it isn't "unbelievers," which has historical overtones of religious genocide, I'm fine.

What if you have dozens of links to unbiased articles showing that homosexuality is good and healthy, and you have historical and scientific information backing this, as well as numerous scriptures, and all I have is my own belief that it's wrong. Are the beliefs still equal?

Of course they aren't. But it isn't an equivalent situation to ours right now, as other than my attempt above to provide said articles and scientific information, no one has really provided it. So right now it's more you have your reading of the Bible and your beliefs, as well as some history, I have mine and mine and some history (Greco-Roman, primarily). So we are equal, although I think I'm right .

EDIT: *waves to Jerseydevil in cross-posting* the reason the thread was necessary was because the threadstarter in GLB didn't want the discussion of marriage there, so we moved it here. Just because we're backwashing doesn't mean the central "marriage" idea of this thread isn't different.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And the overlap between the GLB thread and this one has occurred. These two threads are becoming almost indistinguishable.

Since it seems not to matter where things are really put anymore - I figured I'd throw this out...

Often times it's said that aids is a punishment to homosexuals. So I'm wondering - using the logical conclusion of cause and effect - what the hell did cows do to deserve Mad Cow Disease?

Not every disease is a punishment. Jesus came as a healer, healing people from their physical sicknesses. He did this whether they responded to his message or not. Disease is not something God wants for people. There's at least one scripture that specifically describes Satan binding someone with sickness.

As for cows . . . who knows? We know from the scripture that reptiles committed a sin that caused them to have to crawl on their bellies rather then stand upright. Animals clearly can sin. Perhaps God sent Mad Cow Disease as a punishment. Perhaps Satan sent it because cows are so loyal to God, as he did to Job . Perhaps there's some utterly different reason! It's an interesting question, though .

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

EDIT: *waves to Jerseydevil in cross-posting* the reason the thread was necessary was because the threadstarter in GLB didn't want the discussion of marriage there, so we moved it here. Just because we're backwashing doesn't mean the central "marriage" idea of this thread isn't different.

Well I hearily disagree here. I foresee no difference shortly of GLB and this thread. They will merely be the same thread - just different names. My feeling is they should be merged.

[Nurvingiel]

I am starting to spend a bit too much time in here, and I also will be busy and/or gone for the next week.

However, I will still read the interesting discussion you guys have put forth, espicially Lief's now readable post #190. I'll just make one comment - when I said we were both Anglicans, I thought you were one for some reason because you had made comments about the Episcopalian church. Now I see what you really meant though. (Are you the youth leader an an Episcopalian church?)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief: I do find the term somewhat insulting, but by this point I'm used to it from other discussions (not with you ) and I'm not Christian. But so long as it isn't "unbelievers," which has historical overtones of religious genocide, I'm fine.

If it comes from my mouth, you have my word that all it means is "non-Christian."

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Of course they aren't. But it isn't an equivalent situation to ours right now, as other than my attempt above to provide said articles and scientific information, no one has really provided it.

And many say that that information should not even be gathered before a final decision is made. Inked posted information earlier. I need to talk to him and get the links to it.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

So right now it's more you have your reading of the Bible and your beliefs, as well as some history, I have mine and mine and some history (Greco-Roman, primarily). So we are equal, although I think I'm right .

As far as what I said about some beliefs being superior to other beliefs, I think you're reading it out of context. Nurvi and I were talking about those liberals who say every belief is equal. You apparently agree with me that every belief is not equal. You think these particular beliefs are equal- I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking about all beliefs. I'm glad to find we agree on another thing . We actually tend to agree rather frequently, I think.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

EDIT: *waves to Jerseydevil in cross-posting* the reason the thread was necessary was because the threadstarter in GLB didn't want the discussion of marriage there, so we moved it here. Just because we're backwashing doesn't mean the central "marriage" idea of this thread isn't different.

I think the central issue is still marriage. We're just on a tangent . (Puts on a race car helmet, hops into the front seat and zooms headlong down the tangent) WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! !

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'll just make one comment - when I said we were both Anglicans, I thought you were one for some reason because you had made comments about the Episcopalian church.

Oh yes, I completely understood that. It's a natural step to take. I help lead a youth group at an Episcopal church, so I am an Episcopalian. (Shrugs) I'm not, though, as it happens.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Now I see what you really meant though. (Are you the youth leader an an Episcopalian church?)

Yes. I was actually selected to help in youth leadership at that church by a youth leader from a few years ago. He was a very strong evangelical. I went to the youth group because I was so attracted to his personality and the Spirit I sensed in him.

In the discussion among the teenagers at youth group that night, I had my first taste of liberal opinions, and they were shocking to me. I determined at that moment to keep coming, to try to help spread what I believe to be the truth in that place. I was a good deal more knowledgeable then the average teenager my age, and our youth leader heard me debating with the other students that first night. Almost immediately, he swooped me up into the leadership. A few months later, the Episcopalian church leadership rid themselves of him, after persecuting him for a long time. I was retained as an assistant leader though, along with the other older students he'd gathered. That's the history as far as the youth group is concerned. I started coming to the church in the first place because my mother plays there as the organist.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

IR, if you want to examine heterosexual marriages, go right ahead. It's been around since the beginning of humanity, so it seems to me that a test is unnecessary. If you want to test it though, go right ahead.

Im not looking to test either. Please don’t attempt to shift that faulty line of arguing on me when you are the one who keeps bringing up the specter of “testing” gays to see if they are worthy of marriage. All Im saying is you cant deny certain groups something based on the fact that we don’t have enough data sayings its not harmful (or even a definition of what exactly ‘harmful’ means) and yet turn around and give other groups that same thing without feeling the need to do the same studies on it. its fundamentally and undeniably biased.

By your logic on this, you are going to need to decide what harmful means exactly. and if gay marriage doesn’t meet that level of harm then you will have to allow it. Under my logic, in the case of consenting adults, harm is irrelevant. If both parties wish to enter into a union that other may see as ill chosen that should be their right. The EXACT same is true for a man and a woman who enter into a union that others may see as ill chosen. And that happens hundreds of times a day.

If you can find strong enough reasons to keep heterosexuals from marrying, you'll convince the legislature to get working and heterosexual marriages will be made illegal. Go for it.

come on lief that’s patently ridiculous. If the government suddenly decided to ban all heterosexual marriages based on good evidence or not and said the only marriages allowable were same sex ones, you and many many millions would instantly be transformed into revolutionaries and you would fight to defy the government for something you think is a right set by god. And I would fight along side you but for different reasons. But just because the majority of the population of this highly religious country insists gay marriages are sinful or gross and therefore their legislators follow their lead then oh well too bad for gays? That’s how the cookie crumbles? Again, you gotta be fair in both directions.

And anyway you haven’t found strong enough reasons to keep homosexuals from marrying so again how can you use this line of reasoning?

You say, "marriages are marriages, bandages are bandages." You say the analogy would be correct if one bandage were applied to two different people. This would be an incorrect analogy, because we do not know that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are the same.

No! MARRIAGES are not equal to RELATIONSHIPS. Relationships can exist independent of marriage. Marriage is ALWAYS marriage. Period. Now as far as relationships go, EVERY relationship is different. Every heterosexual one and every homosexual one. So you cannot use this as a means of disqualifying homosexuals in one blanket action. You just cant. Because where would you ever stop? And you would once again get into grading every single relationship.

Your assumption, your firmly felt belief without evidence, is all you've got. We cannot know whether the relationships are the same or not because you and others like you refuse to support the adoption of studies in this case.

Im beginning to see now that your constant harping on about studies and tests is actually a smoke screen. Whats hidden behind it is the fact that constitutionally there is NOTHING saying that certain people must submit to government testing in order to have their rights and liberties as human beings. that the only issue is the hair splitting definition of marriage issue. So constitutionally you have no basis to your argument that we should be testing before allowing gays to marry.

If you can present a convincing case against mixed marriages, fine. If I can present one about homosexual relationships, fine.

define convincing.

And after that tell me why one of these should be allowed during the testing and the other shouldn’t.

The status of marriage being offered suggests state approval, and encourages further spread of the practice. If we find that there's something bad about the practice (like there is something bad about smoking), then it shouldn't be government supported.

gosh then why does the government support tobacco farmers with subsidies? Isn’t that about as big of an endorsement as you can get? Heres a bunch of money to grow crops that we all know kills people. But we aren’t endorsing it…

I refuse to go after hetersexual marriages, because I think it's completely unnecessary.

of course you do. what was that you said before? “Your assumption, your firmly felt belief without evidence”. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander lief.

Giving the benefit of the doubt is potentially dangerous.

dangerous in what way? And how is it dangerous in a way that heterosexual marriage is not exactly?

[Insidious Rex]

I made the point that because homosexual relationships are different, laws shouldn't be made that treat them as though they were the same. I also made the point that we don't know whether they are harmful or not, and if they are harmful, our state will be doing us a disservice by affirming them.

Im sorry to say this lief but that is a bigoted way of thinking. Remember, tons of people used to believe that blacks were different enough from whites that we should legally be allowed to discriminate against them by separating them and giving them unequal treatment, services and opportunities. They even justified this by “tests” that showed lower brain capacity and other scientific measurements that showed that blacks were clearly inferior. You are saying the EXACT same thing about homosexuals here in the context of marriage. That they shouldn’t be allowed to have what you can have because to you they are just too different. That we should segregate the institution of marriage based on sexual persuasion.

I think it would be doing them a service also for these studies to be taken comparing and contrasting their relationships to heterosexual relationships, because they won't find themselves jammed into legal positions they don't really want. For example, Inked posed evidence earlier on that homosexuals tend to switch partners more rapidly then heterosexuals. If this is true, then the distribution of property laws involved in divorce wouldn't be particularly heavy handed on homosexual couples.

homosexuals who are able to marry would be more likely NOT to switch partners then those not able to marry. So this argument actually works against itself. And there are plenty of heterosexuals who have the same problem. We don’t create some special sub category of marriage for them that gives them more freedom from financial ties and property rights. That would be silly. Once again marriage is marriage. Its up to the individuals involved to decide if they feel its appropriate for them or not.

If some new legal status were created for them, it would not be saying some homosexuals were allowed to take part in it and some weren't. It wouldn't be discriminatory.

whats the point of that? You just want to allow them to marry but call it a different thing? Why? They don’t need a new “legal status”. Again, this reeks of segregation. Some sort of separate and unequal argument. What would this special legal status consist of exactly?

If we do the studies and find that there are clearly observable differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples, we'd be doing the homosexuals a service by giving them the new status. On the other hand, if we found that there weren't such differences and wasn't any greater of negative impact on society then heterosexual marriages have, then they can be given the full legal status of heterosexuals involved in marriage. These are the important answers such studies I hope could provide us.

again, constitutionally the idea of passing some sort of test in order to have the right to marry for gays ONLY would never last long in most courts.

I do NOT think that we should have the state encouraging this practice though without understanding what it's encouraging.

Its “encouraging” the union of two people into wedlock. And that’s all.

The government does not approve smoking. Neither should it approve gay marriage.

but it allows smoking. And it should therefore allow gay marriage.

It does it outlaw smoking. Neither should it outlaw homosexuality.

woah woah… bait and switch alert. You’ve got smoking and gay marriage in one sentence and then you suddenly have smoking and homosexualityin the next. Gotta be consistent in your comparisons lief. We were never talking about homosexuality. We were talking about gay marriage. So your sentence would be perfect if you were to say “It does not outlaw smoking and neither should it outlaw gay marriage.”

Approving gay marriage is approving the practice of homosexuality and saying that it is good, healthy, and equal to heterosexual marriage.

none of the above. Its simply saying you are allowed to do it. nothing more.

I think doing these studies on heterosexual marriages would be a waste of the government's money. No one questions heterosexual marriage at all. There would be no point to such a study. The negative impact upon society that these relationships are is universally believed to be very small in comparison to the benefit.

“universally believed” eh. Once again let me remind you of your own statement: “Your assumption, your firmly felt belief without evidence”.

belief

“without evidence”…

and if you can make these statements I can certainly say that logic would dictate that allowing marriage to be an option for a people who formally didn’t have that option would only ENCOURAGE better stronger relationships from the sheer psychological impact alone. You see leif, marriage has a certain aura to it that a simple relationship just doesn’t have. What if allowing gays to marry only improved their current situation and didn’t prove harmful at all. I think just a little common sense would make my belief about that quite reasonable…

[Lief Erikson]

You know what Insidious, I think we're talking over one another's heads. We're making no progress. You don't feel I've responded effectively to your arguments, and I feel the same way about your response to mine. It's hence a useless conversation. I'm done. See you on another thread . Or perhaps just discussing something else on this thread .

[Nurvingiel]

*bump*

One major issue in the debates around gay marriage seems to be the use of the word "marriage". I think a lot of people don't actually understand how marriages legally work in Canada. (Possibly the same applies to Americans and American marriage laws.)

But that's not the real issue with the word "marriage". Do you think some people currently unsupportive of gay marriage would be okay with gay civil unions?

[Count Comfect]

There isn't really a question about that... the polling numbers take a huge jump when you change the word "marriage" to "civil unions." I remember last year, around the election, I saw that something like 2/3 of Americans opposed gay marriage, but a bit over 1/2 supported gay civil unions. Ah, diction.

I found a really interesting quote (that I can't recall verbatim) from Blackstone's Commentaries in 1765 (on English law, obviously, as America did not exist) that stated that "marriage is a civil contract." That's a fact/point of law I don't think is really well known, especially here in the US.

[inked]

Let me not to marriage of true minds admit impediments ...

That was between the sexes as a civil contract, Count.

But you can also call marriage a covenant.

A civil union can be betwixt the same sex and is designed to give the legal benefits of equal status to partners as in marriage which is between the sexes. See it's that sex thing, over and over and over......

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

A civil union can be betwixt the same sex and is designed to give the legal benefits of equal status to partners as in marriage which is between the sexes. See it's that sex thing, over and over and over......

Isn't that half the fun of marriage? (I realize that's probably what you were going for there. )

[Count Comfect]

No, Inked, I (and Blackstone) meant a contract between two individuals. Each marriage is a separate contract. Clearly of course Blackstone was referring to male/female contracts, but if it is a civil contract that means that it may have its boundaries defined by the state as to who may enter into it.

Covenant has the same basic meaning, although it obviously has far more religious and permanent connotations.

Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds
Or bends with the remover to remove.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by inked

A civil union can be betwixt the same sex and is designed to give the legal benefits of equal status to partners as in marriage which is between the sexes. See it's that sex thing, over and over and over......

Yet civil unions have their problems as well. One reason homosexual relationships should not be termed marriage is that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are simply different. Men are different from women, and women different from men. I'm encountering that difference more and more strongly as I enter college life, though it was already visible just in my own house. If men have slightly different brains as well as slightly different bodies from women, as seems only logical from a purely biological perspective, without even getting into all the evidence for this difference, then a man-woman relationship will usually be different from a man-man or woman-woman relationship. If, then, these relationships are different, different laws should be applied to the different types of relationship. Civil unions, which give homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals, would be inappropriate. Different types of laws should exist for the different types of relationships. These types of laws cannot be made without studies being taken on heterosexual and homosexual relationships, to see what differences and similarities there are. These studies should be taken.

Even if there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, these studies at least would show that and thus help to debunk myths. The main problem is finding an unbiased source to carry out these studies.

[brownjenkins]

i don't think laws should have anything to do with sexual relationships at all... can you think of a law that needs to exist purely on the basis of whether two people are married or not?

i.e. ~ laws involving children are enforced in the same way, whether or not the two parents are married... the same is the case with laws involving property that two people in some way own and/or maintain jointly... US tax laws vary according to marriage, but many think that this is actually a very outdated idea

why not remove "marriage" entirely from the legal system and make everything a "civil union"... or, even better, don't even bother recognizing any kind of civil contract at all, and just deal with everyone case by case where legal matters arise

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If men have slightly different brains as well as slightly different bodies from women, as seems only logical from a purely biological perspective, without even getting into all the evidence for this difference, then a man-woman relationship will usually be different from a man-man or woman-woman relationship. If, then, these relationships are different, different laws should be applied to the different types of relationship.

You're saying biologically different relationships should have different laws applied to them. One could say the same thing about culturally different relationships, for instance that a marriage between an American and an Kenyan should have other laws than a marriage between two Americans. One could argue that there should be separate laws for marriages between Catholics and Protestants because they are culturally different. Between a Christian and a Muslim.
We could also have laws that take into consideration the social differences of two people. A marriage between an outgoing person and a more introvert person should have different laws applied to them than a marriage between two soul mates.

No, one would be laughed at if one proposed such legislation. Imo, cultural differences shouldn't matter. Social differences shouldn't matter. So why should biological differences matter? I don't think they should. I believe people are more biased towards biologically different marriages (same-sex marriages) than culturally or socially different marriages and that's why people want same-sex marriages excluded from the usual marriage legislation.

All relationships are unique. Marriage laws should include them all.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If men have slightly different brains as well as slightly different bodies from women, as seems only logical from a purely biological perspective, without even getting into all the evidence for this difference, then a man-woman relationship will usually be different from a man-man or woman-woman relationship.

All relationships are different. You are going to base if people can marry on the substance of their brains?? How dangerous is that...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't think laws should have anything to do with sexual relationships at all...

Pedophiles, be happy .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

can you think of a law that needs to exist purely on the basis of whether two people are married or not?

Here is a list of areas involving marriage where laws apply.

Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans' Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Indians
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Crimes and Family Violence
Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
Miscellaneous Laws

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
I'll get back to you with more information on this subject, if you press me.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i.e. ~ laws involving children are enforced in the same way, whether or not the two parents are married... the same is the case with laws involving property that two people in some way own and/or maintain jointly... US tax laws vary according to marriage, but many think that this is actually a very outdated idea

And, obviously, there are many that feel differently .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

why not remove "marriage" entirely from the legal system and make everything a "civil union"... or, even better, don't even bother recognizing any kind of civil contract at all, and just deal with everyone case by case where legal matters arise

I very strongly suspect that this would be a great burden on the legislature. In California, our courts are already overburdened with a great number of small cases. I think the government is seeking ways to cut down on the number of cases.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

You're saying biologically different relationships should have different laws applied to them.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

One could say the same thing about culturally different relationships, for instance that a marriage between an American and an Kenyan should have other laws than a marriage between two Americans. One could argue that there should be separate laws for marriages between Catholics and Protestants because they are culturally different. Between a Christian and a Muslim.
We could also have laws that take into consideration the social differences of two people. A marriage between an outgoing person and a more introvert person should have different laws applied to them than a marriage between two soul mates.

No, one would be laughed at if one proposed such legislation. Imo, cultural differences shouldn't matter. Social differences shouldn't matter. So why should biological differences matter? I don't think they should.

It is reasonable when creating marriage laws to take into account society and culture. What works best is essentially what should be born. Society and culture have historically always influenced what marriage laws are produced by any given state. Biological differences are far more sweeping than society and culture differences are, however. Their sheer sweeping nature needs to be taken into account. For example, a divorce law that splits evenly the property of a married couple would wreak havoc on homosexual couples who might marry for a year or two and then split. I have seen much more promiscuity and sexually suggestive behavior among homosexuals and lesbians than amongst heterosexuals, and many other people I know have said the same. This is a commonly held view, and often held because of the evidence of experience. If there is really a far higher speed of separation among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, a different divorce law might be more appropriate for them, for their benefit as well as for heterosexual couples'.

This is one demonstration of how laws that apply to heterosexuals might not be appropriate when applied to homosexuals. Sure, my example is controversial. It would be less controversial if studies were enacted to see whether or not there are significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Such studies might also help make people more accepting of the idea of finding the appropriate place for homosexuals in society.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

I believe people are more biased towards biologically different marriages (same-sex marriages) than culturally or socially different marriages and that's why people want same-sex marriages excluded from the usual marriage legislation.

I agree that there is more of a bias against same-sex marriages, but there also are reasons for same-sex relationships not being given marriage rights.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

All relationships are different. You are going to base if people can marry on the substance of their brains?? How dangerous is that...

How dangerous is that? People already marry based on the substance of their brains. Children aren't allowed to marry because of the substance of their brains. One can't seriously believe they aren't allowed to marry because of the maturity of their sexual organs . It's because of their brains, their mental state, that we decide they aren't allowed to marry. The precedent is already set. I've seen in college repeatedly differences between men and women that apply to nearly all cases, and which I think clearly relate to gender. That men and women have different types of brains is obvious. That different laws should relate to heterosexual and homosexual relationships thus is fairly clear, I think. However, I'm not saying we should make that assumption without evidence. That is why I propose taking studies on heterosexual and homosexual relationships, to see where the similarities and differences lie, and thus what would be the most appropriate laws to apply to homosexual relationships.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have seen much more promiscuity and sexually suggestive behavior among homosexuals and lesbians than amongst heterosexuals, and many other people I know have said the same. This is a commonly held view, and often held because of the evidence of experience.

Do you spend a lot of time in homosexual brothels or something lief? Where are all these scores of homosexual deviants that you spend so much time with exactly that you can say such things about “experience” with such confidence? Personally I know quite a few homosexuals and I have seen MUCH more rampant extreme sexual behavior among HETEROSEXUALS. So I completely reject your uninformed notions about gays (especially lesbians) based on my OWN much more vast experience. You can even see that effect here on this message board.

If there is really a far higher speed of separation among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, a different divorce law might be more appropriate for them, for their benefit as well as for heterosexual couples'.

And here we see the full fruiting of the notion that ALL gays are ALL the same just as I warned in another thread... That gays are incapable of having a loving healthy relationship. Completely ridiculous. And nevermind that this would be unconstitutional from the get go since millions of heterosexuals wouldnt meet your standards and you would be allowing them the loophole of being able to marry anyway since they arent gay. Either that or youd have to be willing to enforce it against heterosexuals who dont meet your moral yard stick. And that aint gonna happen...

How dangerous is that? People already marry based on the substance of their brains. Children aren't allowed to marry because of the substance of their brains.

But these are ADULTS! Are you saying gays are the equivalent of children on a maturity level? How patently disgusting.

I've seen in college repeatedly differences between men and women that apply to nearly all cases, and which I think clearly relate to gender. That men and women have different types of brains is obvious.

Well then under that logic better start banning women from the office place. Their brains clearly werent designed for that kind of manly activity. And forget about voting. Thats too much for their highly different brains to handle. And while we are at it lets have them wear burkas and lets make barefoot and pregnant laws! This could be fun! Be careful when you start legislating based on any convenient difference lief. There simply is no basis for treating gays different legally then we do heterosexuals. Unless you want to turn this country into the sexual version of an apartheid regime.