Homosexual marriage

[Elfhelm]

I asked and asked and asked, and you ignore it.

Isn't it true that everything you and inked are saying about gay people can be said about fat people? Don't you see? If you were gay, you would be very angry! But you are a religious zealot whose only intention is to continue two millenia or more of persecution against my people.

If you need me to, I will take your posts and replace "homosexual" with "fat person" so you can see exactly how cruel your statements are.

[brownjenkins]

If #11 was: Thou shalt not be fat

we might be seeing those arguments

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by The King Jimmy Bible

[1] And the Lord spake unto the people of Israel, saying:
[2] Further, ye shall not possess greater weight than I have given unto thee
[3] Nor shall ye eat of the juices of the sugar cane nor the sugar beet
[4] For it is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

You mean like that?

But in seriousness, the major objection (besides that you could be accused of mocking) to the comparison between their arguments and your replacement with "fat" for "homosexual" is their historical argument about past rejection of homosexuality. My own answer to that argument is somewhere in this thread, and I don't really feel the need to repeat it, nor to repeat my own support of homosexual marriage. But that is a difference.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I asked and asked and asked, and you ignore it.

Isn't it true that everything you and inked are saying about gay people can be said about fat people? Don't you see? If you were gay, you would be very angry! But you are a religious zealot whose only intention is to continue two millenia or more of persecution against my people.

If you need me to, I will take your posts and replace "homosexual" with "fat person" so you can see exactly how cruel your statements are.

OR, polygamist
polyamorist
polyandrist
polygynist
underaged
The state can and has limited marriage on numbers of grounds beside sexual orientation. Societies have regulated marriage on similar grounds, though not all societies in exactly the same ways.

But, interestingly, even if state-approval is ordered by the courts (as in Mass), you get unexpected fallout (as in the adoption fiasco with Catholic Charities). Good grounds for expecting continued unanticipated fallout of changing a societal basic to other than what it is, IMHO.

Religious bodies may define marriage differently than the state. It is possible to be married in the eyes of the state but not in the "eyes of God". CS Lewis once suggest a differentiation between civil and church weddings to accomodate the differing views that might arise. BUT, I get the profound notion from my experience as an Episcopalian that such would be unacceptable to the homosexual lobby in the USA ans Canada and UK. The Anglican Communion has registered its disapproval with 20 of 38 provinces in broken or impaired communion with ECUSA and ACA, the Windsor Report, the Dromantine Commission, and -prior to all- Lambeth I.10 in 1998. And let's not forget the broken ecumenical works with the Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox either! So the witness of the worldwide Christian community remains that marriage is between man and woman; likewise, Judaism. And I am not aware of Buddhist or Hindu or Jain (etc,etc) definitions otherwise, nor arranged marriages between like-sexed individuals. No hate involved, despite the often made pathetic assertion that any opposition is homophobia or hate-speech by the vocal MINORITY as a guilt-trip attempting to manipulate emotion. Just an assertion of fact: marriage is between man and woman, period. It is not a matter of justice or fairness. It is a matter of reality.


As I have noted earlier in this thread and/or its predecessor, civil unions according the same benefits, yes; marriage, no. There is no precedent for marriage other than between the two sexes.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I asked and asked and asked, and you ignore it...

I'm sorry, were you talking to me? Did the "you" refer to me? I thought you were talking to inked because your post fell right after his. Do you want my opinion on this? You seemed to get kinda upset at me last time I remarked on one of your posts, so I didn't remark on the fat one. I corrected the thread start comment and let the fat comment go by.

I'd be glad to give you my response if you would like - let me know, please

[Count Comfect]

Inked - there are a couple of factual inaccuracies (as opposed to philosophical ones, which aren't so much inaccuracies as points of disagreement) in your post.

"But, interestingly, even if state-approval is ordered by the courts (as in Mass), you get unexpected fallout (as in the adoption fiasco with Catholic Charities)."

This Catholic Charities issue wasn't a result of the decision by the Supreme Judicial Court on gay marriage, but rather a reaction to a law passed by the legislature 10 years before that had been ignored. (from CBS News: "To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination — including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination.")

"CS Lewis once suggest a differentiation between civil and church weddings to accomodate the differing views that might arise. BUT, I get the profound notion from my experience as an Episcopalian that such would be unacceptable to the homosexual lobby in the USA ans Canada and UK."

Here in the United States of America, civil and church marriage ARE distinct. My parents were not married under any religion (which helped, because they were of different ones) but their marriage is legally binding. Marriage is a legal contract between the two people being married and the state, binding them to certain requirements (such as divorce laws) in exchange for benefits (such as legal recognition of their relationship). It is often solemnized in a religious ceremony, and in most places priests/pastors/rabbis/imams/etc are licensed authorized to perform the civil ceremony, but they are legally separate.

EDIT: The relevant text of the Revised Code of Washington (State)
Title 26.04.010

(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

As I have noted earlier in this thread and/or its predecessor, civil unions according the same benefits, yes; marriage, no. There is no precedent for marriage other than between the two sexes.

What about my proposal from a few pages back. Remove "marriage" entirely from the realm of the state. Or, if you must keep it, though I can see no good reason, make them all "civil unions".

[inked]

CC, thanks for the corrections. Sorry for mis-stating the facts. Purely my error. etc, etc.

BJ,

I quote CC:
EDIT: The relevant text of the Revised Code of Washington (State)
Title 26.04.010

(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

All civil unions could be between persons of the same sex, a person and a member of another species, between multiple partners of the same species of either differing or same sexed individuals, etc., but marriage is as above.

[Count Comfect]

See, I support changing the laws on marriage (because if you're going to give the same benefits, and it'll be a civil contract too, why the heck not call it marriage, except to make people feel worse. Separate but equal is inherently unequal, to quote Thurgood Marshall). But yes, the law does specify that it is between a man and a woman at the moment.

EDIT: PS, Inked, I didn't mean those factual corrections to be nasty; I don't believe you make things up or anything, I just saw a couple errors and felt that they had to be addressed.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

CC, thanks for the corrections. Sorry for mis-stating the facts. Purely my error. etc, etc.

BJ,

I quote CC:
EDIT: The relevant text of the Revised Code of Washington (State)
Title 26.04.010

(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

All civil unions could be between persons of the same sex, a person and a member of another species, between multiple partners of the same species of either differing or same sexed individuals, etc., but marriage is as above.

You miss my point.

If one believes, as I think you do, that:

a) Marriage is between a man and a woman. And it should never be anything but a man and a woman, due to historical and religious reasons.

b) Certain forms of civil unions (i.e. consenting homosexual adults) would be okay to recognize under the law. But they must not be called "marriages" in the eyes of the law, because they are not.

You can do two things:

1) Keep legal "marriage" as it is, between man and woman. But create a second privledge "civil unions" that give the legal benefits of marriage to non-male/female partners. The problem, besides adding to the paperwork, is a kind of "separate but equal" system.

2) Make them all "civil unions". Most religious organizations feel that religion and marriage are intimately tied to one another. You are not married in the eyes of the Catholic church unless you have a Catholic marriage. And you are also not married in the eyes of the government if you don't go through the licensing process, even if you go through a religious ceremony.

The way I see it, there are some downsides to option 1), but I can't see any downsides to option 2), which is basically removing the idea of "marriage" from the government entirely, and just leaving the necessary legal recognition component of two people sharing their lives together.

A possible compromise?

[MrBishop]

Some would say that anything that make same-sex unions appear equal to heterosexual unions lessen the importance of the heterosexual union. :shrug:

Calling it marriage or civil union is moot... it's the equal treatment thing that grates.

[Nurvingiel]

I'd be okay with option #2 Brownie.

Hellow MrBishop! Long time, no see!

Originally Posted by MrBishop

Some would say that anything that make same-sex unions appear equal to heterosexual unions lessen the importance of the heterosexual union. :shrug:

To those people, I would say,

HOW!? HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY DO THAT!!??

*cough*

Please excuse my outburst there. The complete and utter lack of logic in that argument, which is sometimes put forth by opponents of gay marriage, absolutely boggles my mind.

Let's say that my boyfriend and I get married. We love each other deeply and our marriage is very important to us.

Let's say our neighbours are also married, but the husband beats up his wife.

Does that husband's dreadful treatment of his wife, and his utter disrespect for marriage somehow "lessen" the marriage of my husband and I?

No, it does not, not even one iota.

Therefore, if you felt that that gay marriage was wrong, and should not have been made into law, it still does not affect anybody else's marriages, in any way whatsoever.

Originally Posted by MrBishop

Calling it marriage or civil union is moot... it's the equal treatment thing that grates.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

Equal treatment for all!

[Count Comfect]

I completely agree with Nurv here. A the "importance," "value," or whatever other word you choose to use of a marriage should be absolutely independent of what someone else is doing. My parents' marriage is important not because my lesbian cousins can't do it, or because my aunt and uncle can, but because they love and depend on each other. That's all that should go into that evaluation.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by MrBishop

Calling it marriage or civil union is moot... it's the equal treatment thing that grates.

I agree, but in the interest of progress, sometimes you have to take baby steps. One side, right or wrong, has a problem with the word "marriage", but both sides mostly except "civil union".

My ideal situation would be one where marriage and/or civil unions did not exist in the eyes of the government at all. It's a private ceremony that shouldn't be regulated by the government in any way by either telling us what we can do or what we can not do.

All the other legal issues involving people living together, having children together and sharing wealth exist in our legal world whether the two people are married or not (as they should). So the "marriage contract" is irrelavent, or should be, as far as the related laws are concerned.

[inked]

BJ,

"accept", rather than "except", correct?

to quote one of the most intelligent people I see in the mirror....
"The state had every reason to put its nose into societal stability in the assurance of the support of the offspring of a union that was procreative - else the society at large was responsible for all the consequences of heterosexual relations with natural results.

That explains why it did not need the concept of homosexual "marriage" as it was a nonentity. It still is.

Now, the state needed to assure the orderly devolution of property as well from generation to generation and amongst multiple potential inheritors. This was accomplished via legal descent - another proper determination of the state from legal standpoint. On this basis, homosexuals should have equal rights in regard to property, visitation, etc., because the construct of the corporation and company have taken this ought of strictly heritable determinations as priorly. There is legal precedent for partners in a company to have proper shares in a common venture.

But that ain't marriage. Never will be.

"There, I said it again."TM "

(remember, there were no modesty points taken off in the INFERNO quiz! and none for humility- or lack of- either!!!)

CC, no offense suspected! I appreciate being informed of actual mistakes. I regret them.
"I completely agree with Nurv here. A the "importance," "value," or whatever other word you choose to use of a marriage should be absolutely independent of what someone else is doing. My parents' marriage is important not because my lesbian cousins can't do it, or because my aunt and uncle can, but because they love and depend on each other. That's all that should go into that evaluation."

Now here is a simple case of actual agreement between Nurv, CC, and me. The concept of marriage gains nothing by exclusion of homosexual couples of either sex. It is also true that it lacks nothing by the absence of same-sex couples being designated by that marriage.

So why the big push by the gay lobby et amici to include same-sex couples in the term marriage? Especially when civil unions provide legal equality? There must be something of value in the mere cachet of the term that is ineluctably attractive like flame to a moth, or flickers to fireflies, or pheromones to beetles.............

just what is it about the insistence of gays that they have that term when they obviously cannot have the biological reality?

They want an elusive quality, an affirmation, an approval of their disordered lifestyle which is the cachet that, should it so happen, even the use of the term "marriage" will not guarantee. But, if they have destroyed the concept in society, it won't (perhaps) remind them so much of their disordered state. Ah, but then we'll have the assurance that some other object will be named as necessary in the pursuit of sel-approval by social approval. What then?

I speculate it will be the lack of adequate government funding of the fusion of two male gametes or two female gametes to yield "gay" offspring, forcing yet another barrier to "true equality" ... which is unachievable. But that won't stop 'em. Biology is not destiny is it?

Hmmmmmm.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

BJ,

"accept", rather than "except", correct?

to quote one of the most intelligent people I see in the mirror....
"The state had every reason to put its nose into societal stability in the assurance of the support of the offspring of a union that was procreative - else the society at large was responsible for all the consequences of heterosexual relations with natural results.

That explains why it did not need the concept of homosexual "marriage" as it was a nonentity. It still is.

Now, the state needed to assure the orderly devolution of property as well from generation to generation and amongst multiple potential inheritors. This was accomplished via legal descent - another proper determination of the state from legal standpoint. On this basis, homosexuals should have equal rights in regard to property, visitation, etc., because the construct of the corporation and company have taken this ought of strictly heritable determinations as priorly. There is legal precedent for partners in a company to have proper shares in a common venture.

But that ain't marriage. Never will be.

"There, I said it again."TM "

You just love to avoid direct questions, don't you?

I'll try again. Basically I'm saying "marriage" is, and only is, the union of one man with one woman. In fact, I'm going to go one step further. I'm saying that "marriage" is the sole province of religion. The government has no say in who or who can not get married. The only thing they can approve or disapprove of is what constitutes a "civil union" in the eyes of the law. Thus all acceptable unions in the eyes of the state become civil unions.

What is wrong with this idea?

[Count Comfect]

The fact that, legally, there's no difference between what you're calling a "civil union" and what marriage is right now. Marriage. Is. A. Civil. Contract.

And while I recognize that the word "marriage" has a lot more baggage bound up with it, I see nothing that would stop the words "civil union" from having the same baggage if that was the only legally recognized marriage-equivalent.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

They want an elusive quality, an affirmation, an approval of their disordered lifestyle

disordered lifestyle? No I think they just want to be able to marry someone they love like you can. The very notion that all gays are just trying to use the gay marriage issue to impose their lifestyle on you is a joke. Why would they ever care what YOU think about them? They simply want to be able to do something without you and others telling them NO we wont LET you.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The fact that, legally, there's no difference between what you're calling a "civil union" and what marriage is right now. Marriage. Is. A. Civil. Contract.

Actually, it isn't. Marriage is a social contract. It wasn't in the "civil" realm for a large part of human history.

[Nurvingiel]

Wordy McWord from Wordistan Count Comfect the Awesome. You and I are on the same page here I think.

Originally Posted by inked

BJ,

"accept", rather than "except", correct?

Absolutely!

Originally Posted by inked

to quote one of the most intelligent people I see in the mirror....

Bwahaha, awesome.

Originally Posted by inked

"The state had every reason to put its nose into societal stability in the assurance of the support of the offspring of a union that was procreative - else the society at large was responsible for all the consequences of heterosexual relations with natural results.

That explains why it did not need the concept of homosexual "marriage" as it was a nonentity. It still is.

What I get from the first part of this quote is that the state should be involved in couple's lives (since I think what you're saying has implications beyond married couples), in order to ensure resulting offspring are taken care of?

If that is correct (please let me know if it's not), then in the second part of the quote, that gay people can't be married because they're incapable of producing offspring?

If that is so (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), the following are the flaws in this argument:

- Lesbian couples can conceive via artificial insemmenation (sp?), just as a number of straight couples do
- Lesbian and gay couples can adopt children, which is of course a perfectly legitimate way for a child to come into your family
- If having children was required for a couple to be considered married, than barren couples or couples who did not wish to have children would not be able to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. No one wants that, obviously.
- The concept of children being a necessary product of marriage dates from a time of about 80 years ago when most people in our societies (Canadian and American) lived on farm, and it was necessary to have many children to help run the farm, thus ensuring the family's survival. This of course, is no longer the situation, so this concept is now completely out-dated. People have large families now if they wish to, not out of necessity.

Originally Posted by inked

Now, the state needed to assure the orderly devolution of property as well from generation to generation and amongst multiple potential inheritors. This was accomplished via legal descent - another proper determination of the state from legal standpoint. On this basis, homosexuals should have equal rights in regard to property, visitation, etc., because the construct of the corporation and company have taken this ought of strictly heritable determinations as priorly. There is legal precedent for partners in a company to have proper shares in a common venture.

But that ain't marriage. Never will be.

"There, I said it again."TM "

I don't see why an estate can't be inherited by multiple people. The people to whom the estate belongs have the right to decide their inheritors.

I have no idea what you're talking about there, to be frank. That had about as much to do with gay marriage as a pepperoni pizza.

Originally Posted by inked

(remember, there were no modesty points taken off in the INFERNO quiz! and none for humility- or lack of- either!!!)

CC, no offense suspected! I appreciate being informed of actual mistakes. I regret them.
"I completely agree with Nurv here. A the "importance," "value," or whatever other word you choose to use of a marriage should be absolutely independent of what someone else is doing. My parents' marriage is important not because my lesbian cousins can't do it, or because my aunt and uncle can, but because they love and depend on each other. That's all that should go into that evaluation."

Now here is a simple case of actual agreement between Nurv, CC, and me. The concept of marriage gains nothing by exclusion of homosexual couples of either sex. It is also true that it lacks nothing by the absence of same-sex couples being designated by that marriage.

I agree with you that marriage, as an institution, is not harmed by the absence of gay couples. However, the rights of gay couples are harmed by this absence.

On the flip side, the inclusion of gay couples into the insitution of marriage* does not harm marriage in the slightest, and as well, does not impinge upon the rights of straight couples. Therefore, it is clearly the best course of action, in the interest of human rights, to allow gay people to marry.

* by "marriage" I mean government marriage. What churches do is their own affair.

Originally Posted by inked

So why the big push by the gay lobby et amici to include same-sex couples in the term marriage? Especially when civil unions provide legal equality? There must be something of value in the mere cachet of the term that is ineluctably attractive like flame to a moth, or flickers to fireflies, or pheromones to beetles.............

just what is it about the insistence of gays that they have that term when they obviously cannot have the biological reality?

Actually, if civil unions provide legal equality, then that's all I would ask for, legally. However, I also seek the equal treatment of gays in society, which may or may not be assisted by using the term "marriage" for both gay and straight couples.

However, there is a great deal of confusion around the term marriage. I think the Canadian legal system works like this:
If a couple goes down to the courthouse and gets hitched, they have made a civil union.
If they then go to a church and have a religious wedding, the church considers them to be married (religious married).

If a couple gets married in a religious ceremony, but does not get a civil union by the government, then the church considers them married, but the government does not.

The confusion arises from this point: Many Christian priests also have the legal ability to marry a couple as well as spiritual. Therefore, you can have a wedding in a church and leave religiously and governmentally married. This practice, I think, is what gave rise to the use of marriage to refer to both government civil unions and religious marriage.

I think participants in the debate around the use of the word "marriage", on both sides, are often unclear as to what they are really arguing about. I say we not worry about semantics like that in this thread, we have enough to worry about.

Originally Posted by inked

They want an elusive quality, an affirmation, an approval of their disordered lifestyle which is the cachet that, should it so happen, even the use of the term "marriage" will not guarantee. But, if they have destroyed the concept in society, it won't (perhaps) remind them so much of their disordered state. Ah, but then we'll have the assurance that some other object will be named as necessary in the pursuit of sel-approval by social approval. What then?

Disordered? What the hey now?

Also, for the whole "destroying the concept of marriage in society" (paraphrase) bit, please see my previous post for a rebuttle. <edit>That would be post #392.</edit>

Originally Posted by inked

I speculate it will be the lack of adequate government funding of the fusion of two male gametes or two female gametes to yield "gay" offspring, forcing yet another barrier to "true equality" ... which is unachievable. But that won't stop 'em. Biology is not destiny is it?

Hmmmmmm.

It is unnecessary for the government to fund the joining of two male or female gametes, obviously. I think you just missed the point of everything.

1. That clearly wouldn't work anyway. That is not, as you know perfectly well, how people are made.
2. Gay people are a product of a man and a woman conceiving a child. That is how gay people come into the world, so why would we need to join two male or female gametes anyway?
3. Most importantly, the ability to have children does not make someone equal in rights and dignity to other human beings. Being a human being makes someone equal to other human beings in rights and dignity.