Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Stick to the harp.

I wish I had more time for it ...

But that absolutely DOES make you inconsistent. If you were consistent your only concern would be ‘harm’.

No, if I were consistent I would state what my viewpoint is and stick to it. And that's what I'm doing. I've never said that harmfulness was my only criteria.

Why would enforceability enter into it? Are you saying enforceability is more important then morality?

No, I'm saying that sadly we live in a fallen world, with limited resources, and one must choose where to apply these resources. As I said before, I think that, for example, dwelling on hateful thoughts is harmful. But would I pass a law against dwelling on hateful thoughts? Obviously not. How would it be enforced? And while trying to figure out how to enforce it, other people could commit crimes right and left without anyone stopping them because resources are tied up trying to figure out how to read people's minds.

(Of course Lotesse claims to be able to read my mind; maybe we should just hire her )

Promiscuous sex is immoral right? Sex out of wedlock is immoral right? So why wouldn’t you vote for a ban on sex between non married people? Whats the difference between that and a ban on sex because of age? They are both just as hard to enforce. But we DO have age of consent laws in place.

My vote on these laws, again, is based on considerations of harm and enforceability. Yes, both are hard to enforce, but IMO the harm is MUCH greater against the child, so it's well worth the resources to try to enforce it. My decision is based on trying to balance all of the complex factors involved. It's not just a brainless "this is wrong so I want a law against it" mentality.

Yet you choose to pick on gays who want to get married and not on non married people who want to have sex? Why the inconsistency there?

Again, my vote on these laws is based on considerations of harm and enforceability. I think gay marriage would be very harmful, and it is 100 percent enforceable. Doesn't even pull a cop off the street or an investigator away from his/her research to try to solve a crime. Trying to catch adult non-married sex would involve using up tons of resources that IMO could be better used elsewhere, such as trying to catch pedophiles.

If there were referendums to change all the age of consent laws in the country to 12 would you not vote against it because its hard to enforce? Be consistent… Where would we be today if leaders like Martin Luther King and Susan B. Anthony had only pressed for things because they were popular and easy to do? Its not a very Christian way of thinking frankly…

I don't press for things because they're popular and easy to do. In fact, being on this thread is VERY unpopular and VERY difficult for me, yet I do it.

The reality of things is that resources are limited, and I think one must look at harm and enforceability issues when talking about what laws to enact. Passing laws against wrong thoughts, for example, would be ridiculous, although I think wrong thoughts are very harmful.

How? Explain how promoting monogamy and rewarding love between consenting adults will be more “significantly harmful to society� then NOT doing it.

There's no reason to do this, because I've already explained, and you disagree with my reasons, just like I disagree with your reasons that it is not harmful.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Oh come on Rian. you make statements like "Do you recant???" like you are some inquisitioner and you expect me to believe you arent trying to make me look foolish? You aren’t trying to grab hold of something where you think you can score a point?

Sorry for the formal language there ("recant") - I tend to get formal sometimes in discussions that I think are important. I certainly didn't want to try to make you look foolish, but I can see how you thought that. Sorry

I'm not into "petty little gotcha games" and I don't use them. I hope you believe me. If I think I'm right, I'll try to convince someone by any honest means I can. I'm not into trickery at ALL - if I can't convince someone with honest means, then I shouldn't try to convince them with tricks. I wouldn't do that. Honesty is very important to me.

[Count Comfect]

C'mon guys, calm down... this is a lot more interesting for all of us (I hope) if you try to stay calm (I know that applies to me too, but I haven't posted in a while, so there's no evidence that I'm not calm )

Rian - I'm sure you've tried to state them before, but I'm still very unsure of your reasons as to why gay marriage is actively harmful. As far as I can see, I am in no way harmed if my 2 neighbours get married, regardless of their respective genders - nor do I see how they themselves are harmed.

[Rían]

I'm calm, Count, but I"m sad because my poorly-worded post made Rexy think I was trying to make him look foolish, which I wasn't And looking back on my post, I can totally see how it came off that way I just need to be really careful when I post here - typed "talking" is VERY difficult to work with!!!!! A lot of communication is non-verbal, visual cues, which we just don't have here. That's why I usually end up editing and refining my posts.

I'll post more later and try to answer your question, Count - I think I need to stop for today, though. I'm not avoiding your question (I hope you can see I don't avoid questions), but posts here need a lot of care to make sure they're expressed right, and that takes time, and I need to get some paperwork done like NOW - yuck! Tonight is VERY busy, and tomorrow, too, and I usually can't post much on weekends, so it might have to wait until Tuesday, unless I get an unexpected block of free time. Oh, wait - I have a meeting Tuesday ... well, I will get to your question, it might take a while, though. Carry on, guys!

[GreyMouser]

Here's a sweet little story

Mounties get their men -- each other
The Force is with them as RCMP officers to wed
By DAN ARSENAULT Staff Reporter

METEGHAN — On a Friday night in Yarmouth this June, Const. Jason Tree and Const. David Connors will don their scarlet dress uniforms, stand before family, friends and co-workers and wed in the first same-sex marriage in the RCMP’s storied history.

In an interview in their Meteghan home Wednesday afternoon, the men said they’ve had great support from the national police force, the community and their families.

......
Provincial RCMP spokesman Sgt. Frank Skidmore said the force was happy to hear about the union, adding that they’re proud RCMP officers reflect all aspects of the community.

"This is a first for us," Sgt. Skidmore said Wednesday. "Certainly, the RCMP welcomes a workforce that is representative of Canadian society, and that is the case here."

http://halifaxherald.com/Front/504265.html

[GreyMouser]

This is in a small town in one of our more rural provinces

Although they have a lot of support from fellow officers, they aren’t immune to teasing and have heard joking remarks about being Brokeback Mounties.

"I’ve heard that, and it’s funny," Const. Connors said.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Honestly dont make me laugh... I know you enjoy your petty little gotcha games but youre going to have to try harder I guess (as usual). Gays have been TRYING to get married for many many years. This isn’t recent stuff at all. But when they try they have then been told NO you cant but not seeing ANYTHING on the books saying specifically gays cant marry or in the case of many states (STILL 7 states TODAY) nothing in the books defining marriage to be between a man and woman only, their only alternative is to turn to the court system. Its like saying you were trying to change something if you were denied getting a drivers license simply based on the fact that its always been men who got drivers licenses. Youd sue and rightfully so. Then the intolerant men would enact language defining driving as an act ONLY done by a man and tack on amendments banning all women from getting licenses. And that’s where we stand now with the gay marriage issue.


Have a look:

I even pulled from the same source you did…









Gosh so who took the legal route in THAT one Rian?



Oh and this is interesting since all we ever hear is that this isnt a constitutional issue…:



So stop trying to deny the reality of the situation. Gays are NOT suing for special privileges. Gays have been wanting and trying to get married for decades. Just the anti gay marriage folk have been actively getting in their way to STOP them.

Or, more correctly, people have been defining marriage as between man and woman when other persons have attempted to make it different.

That old cake and devour it thang, IR!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Or, more correctly, people have been defining marriage as between man and woman when other persons have attempted to make it different.

That doesnt make logical sense inked. If the definition was not yet in place (legally) then how could they be attempting to make it different? In those places where it WASNT defined as such (legally) it was the anti gay marriage crowd that attempted to make a specific change by (legally) saying what amounts to "Hey hey! Just a moment! Cut that out! From now on unless one of you is the opposite sex you cant marry!"

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, if I were consistent I would state what my viewpoint is and stick to it. And that's what I'm doing. I've never said that harmfulness was my only criteria.

So are you saying there is nothing you support that ISNT easy to enforce? What about laws against murder? Do you consider them easy to enforce? Does it stop murder cold in this country like a constitutional amendment stops gay marriage?

No, I'm saying that sadly we live in a fallen world, with limited resources, and one must choose where to apply these resources. As I said before, I think that, for example, dwelling on hateful thoughts is harmful. But would I pass a law against dwelling on hateful thoughts? Obviously not. How would it be enforced? And while trying to figure out how to enforce it, other people could commit crimes right and left without anyone stopping them because resources are tied up trying to figure out how to read people's minds.

So then do you support legalization of any or all drugs? It would certainly save resources. Crimes are committed left and right because we spend way too much time going after small time pot users in this country and thereby creating an artificial underground uncontrolled economy where anything goes including murder and where seeking help can lead to prosecution.

By the way can you think of anything else you support for the same reasons you support banning gay marriage? That is because its ‘harmful’ and easy to enforce?

My decision is based on trying to balance all of the complex factors involved.

Ok but I guess we are rather confused as to what these “complex factors� are that would compel you to actually go out of your way to BAN gays from marrying. After all theres a LOT of good reasons TO support marriage, gay or not. Bush has been promoting marriage as the best thing for people in our society. So whatever it is that you think is on the other side of the equation must be really huge if its enough to counter balance all the good stuff about marrying. Yet it remains a mystery as to what it is… And how you know…

Passing laws against wrong thoughts, for example, would be ridiculous, although I think wrong thoughts are very harmful.

So then if in the future we had the technology to read minds would you back the idea of passing laws against wrong thoughts?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm calm, Count, but I"m sad because my poorly-worded post made Rexy think I was trying to make him look foolish, which I wasn't And looking back on my post, I can totally see how it came off that way I just need to be really careful when I post here - typed "talking" is VERY difficult to work with!!!!! A lot of communication is non-verbal, visual cues, which we just don't have here. That's why I usually end up editing and refining my posts.

Just for the record I think its ok to make me look foolish. I didnt say it wasnt. If Im just making crap up or if I dont know what Im talking about then that should be pointed out and poignantly. I do it all the time. But DO expect a reaction from me if I THINK you are attempting to make me look foolish when I know Im not being foolish...

[inked]

You vill do as ve say or else.......

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...30/199231.html

Oh, no, there'll never be unintended fallout much less abuse by same-sex couples of others..............

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Just for the record I think its ok to make me look foolish. I didnt say it wasnt. If Im just making crap up or if I dont know what Im talking about then that should be pointed out and poignantly. I do it all the time. But DO expect a reaction from me if I THINK you are attempting to make me look foolish when I know Im not being foolish...

'K

*huggles*

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rian - I'm sure you've tried to state them before, but I'm still very unsure of your reasons as to why gay marriage is actively harmful. As far as I can see, I am in no way harmed if my 2 neighbours get married, regardless of their respective genders - nor do I see how they themselves are harmed.

OK, the long weekend is over, and the busy Tuesday is over, and I have about half an hour to respond now.

(I haven't been too anxious to post this because it's always very draining to post here and be accused of awful things that I'd never even dream of thinking. Not by you, Count, but it does happen with some others, and it's really hurtful and draining. Anyway, time to buck up and post )

SO - to me, your question is like "please explain physics", so it prob. won't be a one-post answer. This is a complex subject, and is filled with raw emotions, and I don't want to hurt people, so I'll have to be very precise with my wording.

As I have thought about this subject, I think the best analogy would be this: it's like you and I are dealt some cards. You lead a 2, and I play a 3. I think your play is wrong, and you think mine is wrong. The trouble is, each of us has different opinions on what game we're playing. According to the game you think you're playing, your 2 is an excellent lead and my 3 is a bad play. According to the game I think I'm playing, your 2 is a terrible lead and my 3 is an excellent play.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes, I'm going to bring up that W-word - "worldview" - because IMO that has EVERYTHING to do with how one answers your question. By "worldview", I mean the unproven, unproveable beliefs that a person has come to form about the state of the universe.

When I consider the question from what I understand to be your worldview, then I can see how you think that my opinion is wrong. (And btw, I don't see how you can logically call anything "right", but that's another thread.)

When I consider the question from my worldview, then your opinion is wrong.

By worldview, I mean the unproven, unproveable beliefs that a person has come to form about the state of the universe.

SO - contrary to some people's opinion my worldview has NOT been formed by stupidly picking up a book that happened to be called a Bible and agreeing mindlessly with everything that's written in it. It's been formed by thousands of hours of thought and research. I don't hold it lightly. I certainly get abused for it! But the good parts just blow away the bad ones, and IMO, no other worldview even comes close to explaining the world I see around me as well as the Bible.

In a very small nutshell, I think that it is a reasonable belief that there is a greater power behind things. I also think it's reasonable that that power would want to communicate with his/her creation. Furthermore, after considering the options, it's my opinion that the written record called the Bible is the best candidate by FAR (based upon things like internal consistency, historical accuracy, logical cohesiveness, comparison with things I can see in our world, etc. etc.) as a record of that communication.

Now in that record, I see God creating two types of people - men and women. Furthermore, I see God instituting a bringing-together of a man and a woman in marriage, and I see incredibly intricate body parts designed to come together for pleasure and procreation. I see the great differences between men and women, and how their coming together makes an even greater whole, and God uses this picture to illustrate many things, such as God's intimate love for His people, and different aspects of His nature making a whole. So IMO, marriage isn't some evolved idea (there's no actual evidence for this, btw - it's just an opinion) - it's a purposeful design for the best of everyone involved, especially children.

I'm a woman, but I have an incredible respect and admiration for both sexes. And I feel a great responsibility towards children, too. And IMO, having a good, stable marriage with one man and one woman is the absolute best thing for a child. IMO, saying that you can just pull out one partner and insert another so that it's a same-sex marriage is incredibly demeaning to whatever sex is pulled out. I think that women have amazing, incredible things to contribute to a child, just by being a woman. And ditto with men. And saying that a marriage can be woman/woman is demeaning to men and very harmful to any children that might be involved. And saying that a marriage can be man/man is demeaning to women and very harmful to any children that might be involved. Even if there are NOT children involved, because the same sex marriage is lived out in society, children will be seeing this and the harm is still there.

I see design behind this universe. As an engineer, I know that design involves choices - choosing some things means not choosing others. I see marriage as a wonderful, intentional DESIGN, and one cannot simply pull out parts and substitute different ones.

As far as why do some people not desire partners of the opposite sex, I'd say why do I desire things that go against God's design sometimes, too? We all are in the same boat. I do NOT consider myself at ALL better than gays - in fact, it would be a safe bet to say that many if not most gays are prob. nicer than I am. It's not a question of better. It's just a fact of design, and the reality is that not everyone gets all their desires fulfilled in this often cruel world.

I'm very compassionate towards homosexuals; it must be an incredibly hard thing to have to deal with. There IS a lot of hate directed towards them, but not by me or even by Christianity, IMO, although it might come from individual hateful so-called Christians. I also have hard things to deal with. So do my kids. To me, we're all in the same boat, and I think that God took responsibility for giving us free will by voluntarily taking our punishment upon Himself if we choose to align to that reality.

So there's a first cut at an answer - basically, because of my worldview, I think that marriage is an intentional design (and a wonderful one, too!), and that going against that design is very harmful to everyone involved. I think that men and women did NOT come about by evolutionary "accident", but rather were intentionally designed and created with marriage, among other things, in mind. Having a man and a woman in a marriage is a great things, and any other combination (more than 2, same sex, etc.) is, because of design decisions, NOT a great thing. I think children in a same-sex marriage household are deliberately being denied the wonderfulness of one entire sex, and are being denied the chance to view the relations between the two sexes.

[Count Comfect]

But Rian, how does this justify imposing this belief on someone else? Sorry to use the loaded word "impose," but what makes it right for you to say to someone else that they cannot choose to do something that, in your opinion, goes against God's design? Clearly, if you think it goes against God's design, you will not do it, since even though you say you desire some things against God's design I'm assuming you don't do those things despite your desire. But what privileges your belief in God's design over their belief in God's design? Or mine? Why should your belief that God did not design marriage for same-sex couples mean that a couple that believes God DID design it so (or a couple that believes God did not design it at all) cannot be married? Isn't it better to leave that decision to those couples? After all, if you allow your belief in God's design to trump theirs in respect to this decision for them, how does that have any more validity than, say, someone with a belief that God's design calls for slavery then imposing a slave system on a formerly free country? Or anything else motivated by what is seen as God's design?

Simply put, I still fail to see a reason why your judgement (or that of anyone not involved in the relationship, myself included) should be prioritized over that of those people actually in the relationship, if they want to get married. Where is the harm?

As to the one issue in your post I see as a clear harm point, I'll now address the issue of "demeaning."

And IMO, having a good, stable marriage with one man and one woman is the absolute best thing for a child. IMO, saying that you can just pull out one partner and insert another so that it's a same-sex marriage is incredibly demeaning to whatever sex is pulled out.

First here, this is not a society in which one cannot have children without a good stable marriage between a man and a woman. So even if that is best (which I don't necessarily agree with), it isn't the default situation; it isn't what we should be comparing to. Is it better for a child to have a single mom and her girlfriend or two moms actually married? Is it better for a child to have two feuding parents of different genders or two loving parents of one gender? I feel those are just as legitimate potential situations. And I really think that in the modern world, the question of having two loving and MARRIED parents of whichever genders is much more important than the question of whether those parents are of the same or different genders. Anything that can lead to more parents being in a loving, married relationship is better - no matter what gender those parents might be. Gays can have kids without marriage, just like straight people. In this society, the issue of having kids and the one of marriage are separate; that's a different policy debate.

As to whether implying that you can plug in one sex for the other is demeaning... that's going to come down to worldview in a lot of ways. And I don't question that people need caring influences of both genders in their lives. But to say that the one you marry (civil contract committing two people to each other in the eyes of the state, remember) has to be of the opposite gender strikes me as far more demeaning to those who are closest, sexually and/or mentally, to someone of their own gender than allowing same-sex marriage is to people of the other gender. It is saying to a gay person that they are not competent to choose who to commit themselves to; that's demeaning. But allowing a gay marriage is not telling the other gender it is unnecessary. No marriage is a closed system. There is no question anywhere that both genders are necessary and important. Every person needs both genders in his or her life - but he or she also needs more than one other person in that life. To say that one's espoused must be that other gender is demeaning for the reason I said above - it implies that the person who wrote the law is more competent to choose the gay person's mate than the gay person is. No one is proposing to uproot one gender entirely from their lives - merely not to have to MARRY that gender.

[inked]

when is an imposition not an imposition....

check out this indoctrination program for 6 weeks to 6 years old and medical school applicants......

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052908.html

Now, is this imposition or not?

and in that green and pleasant isle: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/...784675,00.html

This is particularly ironic to my mind. Subvert England via outside compacts.

[Rían]

*reads Count's reply*

That's a good, thoughtful, and considerate post, Count. I'm so appreciative of your input in this discussion. I'm just peeking in for a minute here, and will be able to reply at length in a few more hours when I have some free time.

[inked]

and a couple of English bishops weigh in....

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=307

[Mercutio]

Question for you guys:

Why does the government care about marriage? What is the purpose of laws surrounding it?

(I have an answer in mind...but I'd like to hear your opinions first)

[inked]

and the Scots.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...198359,00.html

It would seem apparent that the issue is not simplistic at all, would it not?


and, a worthwhile cultural essay on the Gay Movement and the Federal Marriage Protection Act (which essay I may disagree with but which seems accurate in its assessment of responses religious and cultural) ...
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/d...s/meteoric.doc

[inked]

And here at home, a discussion of discrimination and legality and impacts:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p13s01-lign.htm