Where are my civil rights?

[teflor the ranger]

Gee now, your new examples don't really make any sense do they?

I mean, nothing anywhere says only native americans can get married does it? THAT would be an appropriate example.

No but they do qualify for additional funding, SBA initiatives, grants, and legal protections. Unique Benefits.

Look, if ONLY one thing is allowed then the other things are NOT allowed. How simple does it need to be stated before you are capable of comprehending?

I think you're the one who's not getting it. You sure you want to play this game with me again?

People may still _call_ it marriage to themselves, but they would have no legal standing whatsoever... which is the entire point really! Not to mention that in states where people _do_ think it's ok, they wouldn't be able to allow it!

Sure, to themselves. Why would it need legal standing? Do you need legal standing to be a jerk? Furthermore, it could only be banned if it had legal standing. You can't ban something that's not defined. Those would be powers left to the state in our republic.

All you've shown here is that we don't treat everyone equally. GREAT! Good show on proving that we're bigotted assholes in general!

We're not bigotted assholes in general. What the hell is wrong with you? It's ignorant to say that treating everyone equally isn't being an asshole. Do you send your quarterback on the field with a broken arm and expect him to perform equally with the other players?

Bullshit, Sarvis.

There is no "other channel" here though. Especially with that amendment banning ANY other grouping from having the same rights and privileges as marriage.

Again, bullshit. It bans any other grouping from having the exact set of rights attributed to marriage. They certainly may have similar rights or even superior rights to those of marriage according to the amendment.

There are no differences by the way. At least no hard and fast ones. The best one, and I'm sure you're about to bring it up, is that gay couples can't produce offspring. Guess what, some straight couples can't either so that's not actually a difference!

There are more differences than that, Sarvis. And not everything has to be hard and fast, hasn't anyone ever told you?

1) If there's no effect then the government should allow it.

This is not one of those situations. It does affect people because they care about the topic, they are aware of the subject, and they have an opinion.

Whether you like it or not, it does effect other people.

Furthermore, if there is no effect, why would we want our government to waste time considering it in legislation?

2) No one's encouraging gay marriage, just allowing it for those who want to take part.

They most certainly may get married if they want. Government isn't stopping them. They just don't recognize it or care.

There was no benefit to ending slavery in this country either by the way. Go ask a black person if he wishes slavery had never ended.

Giving a federal definition of marriage as being between man and a woman has nothing to do with slavery. Furthermore, it was only when slavery was DEFINED that the government was capable of freeing the slaves.

[Imis9]

Actually, there was a huge benefit to ending slavery as slavery is actually a socialist system. With capitalism, you have the free movement of labor which is what the North really needed at that time. Also, labor and business competes for their services.

Just fixing arguement that there was no benefit to ending slavery.

[Sephraem]

So then you think the legalities of marriage are more important than the feelings or religion?

No. But they have become significant. Take away those legalities, the myriad benefits that come from marriage, and I suspect you'll find that the number of marriages begins to fall. Not a huge amount, after all, Christians will still want to marry, because of their beliefs, but the athiests will probably lose interest.

It's possible to commit to someone without going through some kind of ceremony and obtaining a bit of paper to confirm it.

Well then there is little more that I can say to you. However, can you at least agree that since <i>society</i> accepts atheistic unions as marriage it is hypocritical to not accept homosexual unions since they have already given up the religious part of the marriage?

I suppose you could consider the individuals who consider an athiest union to be a marriage, yet a homosexual one not to be, hypocritical.

As an aside, what about ceremonies performed by other religions? Is a Hindu marriage valid for instance? Or a Buddhist marriage?

I thought I'd made my position clear on this. I said that marriage was a 'religious institution', not a 'Christian' one.

However, parallels can be drawn between that and the seperation of people by words.

If you live a good life as a cow or some other animal (not sure what) you get promoted to the lowest class of human. As this low human you get a "home" which shares all the same basic functions as the "home" of the highest caste of human, say a ruler.

However could anyone argue that the quality of a single room straw hut is the same as the palace of a ruler? Sure, they are both technically a "home" but there is a world of difference.

This is in much the same way as a civil union and a marriage are both ways of joining people together.

Why, if you are not religious, would you wish to partake in a religious ceremony, and have your commitment to your partner blessed by God, and be a part of a religious institution?

Because they want to be equal to everyone else. Not cut off and set apart as lesser or different.

Equality. Equality is at the heart of almost all civil rights struggles, including this one.

You say it yourself; 'civil rights'. I'm not proposing that homosexuals have different civil rights. In fact, I have been unwaveringly in favour of the same civil rights being extended to include homosexuals. I just think that some attention should be brought to the religious rights of those whose institution will be affected.

No, I didn't mean to cause offense. I just didn't think that would offend anyone...

Sorry if I did. Is it because I said God should mind his own business or because I swore though?

No problem. It was simply your choice of words.

Well, that is a matter of specificity really. In fact one of the things that annoy me about the PC movement is trying to use gender neutral terms too much. There are no longer actresses, there are just actors...

Actually, for me, it's the gender-specific pronoun problem that winds me up. Whether to say 'he' or 'she' really seems to be an issue. I first began to notice it in role-playing books, and I found that it jarred to see 'she' used, where I expected a 'he'. Clearly, someone imagined that people would be pleased to see that some books give equal coverage to the female pronoun and the male, alternating from chapter to chapter, but frankly, it just bugs me. Not only because it implies that people are too stupid to understand that women are encompassed by the already established term, but by the idea that using the female pronoun somehow will make us all realise that women are equal... Well, it probably comes about 100 years too late, and now, it just seems patronising.

Of course, there's an outside chance that I think about these things a little too much.

However, man and woman are really just subcategories of People. An appropriate parallel would be to have marriage as the category with "gay marriage" and "straight marriage" as the subcategories!

Or how about 'Unions' as the catagory, with subcatagories of 'marriage' on the one hand, and 'civil unions' on the other?

[Sephraem]

I believe in America, we as a soceity has really fallin for what Hollywood portray what love is. Growing up within the Christian faith I came to understand that there are many different type of love. So to be able to answer your question better can you clarify what you mean by "does one really choose the person with whom one falls in love?".

One time, in class, we were studying 'love', and I remember the teacher saying that love is commitment. It's a choice to work hard at a relationship with another person, for both parties to work together, to communicate and compromise. But above all, it's about commitment.

At the time, I disagreed, and even today, I would argue that commitment is only part of it.

If it were only about commitment, then it really wouldn't matter who you 'loved'. It's just a choice to work at a relationship with someone. It doesn't even have to be reciprocated. Of course, you'd be daft to choose to put all your energy into committing to someone who will never do the same.

And this is why I don't believe that it's all about choice. There is an element, a huge element, of attraction, of compatibility, that has to be present long before a commitment can be made. Moreover, there must be trust.

Whether the Hollywood notion of 'love at first sight' is accurate, I wouldn't like to say, but I think it's not really about 'choice'.

Something i learned from my marriage and family class. You can alway learn to love someone. My professor told of this couple on the verge of divorce. The wife felt neglected and felt like the husband was cheating on her with his work. He did not sleep with another person, but his work was taking up the majority of his time. They did not go out and or spend time together. He got married so he caught her, no longer need to pursuit her, was his thinking. They were separate, when to marriage counseling and he pro-active began pursuiting her again. The wife who no longer loved her husband fell back in love with him.

Sadly, it's all too common. At least in this case they sought counselling and it all worked out. However, the desire to fix the problem came from somewhere. Originally, they must have loved each other, and it was that love which spurred them to find a solution.

So I believe there was some choice in the love process. But again I want to reiterate that "love" without being define is a hard concept to defend.

Absolutely. Choice plays a part. But it's only a part. And if you find that the person you love and trust most in the whole world is a person of the same gender...

Well, I suppose you can choose to walk away...

[Sarvis]

Gee now, your new examples don't really make any sense do they?

I mean, nothing anywhere says only native americans can get married does it? THAT would be an appropriate example.

No but they do qualify for additional funding, SBA initiatives, grants, and legal protections. Unique Benefits.

Yes, which means that white people like me are banned from receiving those benefits.

Teflor, not responding to you anymore until you go take some night courses or something and learn how to read.

[teflor the ranger]

Gee now, your new examples don't really make any sense do they?

I mean, nothing anywhere says only native americans can get married does it? THAT would be an appropriate example.

No but they do qualify for additional funding, SBA initiatives, grants, and legal protections. Unique Benefits.

Yes, which means that white people like me are banned from receiving those benefits.

Teflor, not responding to you anymore until you go take some night courses or something and learn how to read.

That's the entire point, Sarvis.

You are banned from recieving specific benefits that are accorded only to Native Americans, but you are not banned from any benefits or legal protections whatsoever, you are not banned from other SBA initiatives, other grants, government funding (welfare, unemployment insurance benefits, foodstamps), or for that matter, you are not banned from being white.

The fact of the matter is that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, does nothing to affect the freedom of the people to chose with whom they want to dedicate themselves to.

While yes, they will not be considered married in the same manner as relationships between a man and a woman, nor do we consider Asian to be the same as African, white to be black, up to be down, or right to be wrong. They are not being denied the freedom to choose their life partner, and they are not being denied the freedom to declare each other's love.

One thing is clear, Sarvis, where you believe that the proposed federal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, in any way bans gay marriage, as well as looking into your past of slaughtering the definitions of words, and the ignorance as to their meanings and usage, you are the one who needs reading classes.

[Sarvis]

Gee now, your new examples don't really make any sense do they?

I mean, nothing anywhere says only native americans can get married does it? THAT would be an appropriate example.

No but they do qualify for additional funding, SBA initiatives, grants, and legal protections. Unique Benefits.

Yes, which means that white people like me are banned from receiving those benefits.

Teflor, not responding to you anymore until you go take some night courses or something and learn how to read.

That's the entire point, Sarvis.

You are banned from recieving specific benefits that are accorded only to Native Americans, but you are not banned from any benefits or legal protections whatsoever, you are not banned from other SBA initiatives, other grants, government funding (welfare, unemployment insurance benefits, foodstamps), or for that matter, you are not banned from being white.

The fact of the matter is that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, does nothing to affect the freedom of the people to chose with whom they want to dedicate themselves to.

While yes, they will not be considered married in the same manner as relationships between a man and a woman, nor do we consider Asian to be the same as African, white to be black, up to be down, or right to be wrong. They are not being denied the freedom to choose their life partner, and they are not being denied the freedom to declare each other's love.

One thing is clear, Sarvis, where you believe that the proposed federal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, in any way bans gay marriage, as well as looking into your past of slaughtering the definitions of words, and the ignorance as to their meanings and usage, you are the one who needs reading classes.

BUT THEY CANNOT GET MARRIED YUU IDIOT!

They can live together forever. But they cannot marry.

[Sarvis]

Just like the white guy is banned from getting certain benefits that native americans can.

Sure, I may be able to get some _other_ benefits... but I cannot get housing finance from the Native American housing fund (not that indians can either since Bush destroyed their budget actually!)

I am _banned_ from receiving that benefit, just like homosexuals are now banned from getting married AND from receiving any of the benefits of marriage.


They are not allowed to marry. They may be allowed to get a civil union, but that is NOT MARRIAGE... that is the whole damn point Sephraem has made!

Not only is it not marriage, but it could not carry any of the benefits of marriage. It's like saying that black people cannot have a housing fund because the native americans do!

EDIT: Oh yeah, now back to not responding to your idiocy anymore...

[teflor the ranger]

Good God, Sarvis, I thought you said you weren't going to respond. I'll stop for now so your blood pressure can go down. I'll look back at this in a few days.

[Sarvis]

No. But they have become significant. Take away those legalities, the myriad benefits that come from marriage, and I suspect you'll find that the number of marriages begins to fall. Not a huge amount, after all, Christians will still want to marry, because of their beliefs, but the athiests will probably lose interest.

It's possible to commit to someone without going through some kind of ceremony and obtaining a bit of paper to confirm it.

So you're asserting that atheists are soulless and emotionless?

Now who's being offensive?

People marry for love, and because they are "supposed" to in our society. It's the last significant step in life basically before you are considered fully and truly adult.

Atheists aren't sitting there looking at all the legal benefits of marriage and drooling over them. If that's all they cared about, wouldn't your friend be getting married?

I suppose you could consider the individuals who consider an athiest union to be a marriage, yet a homosexual one not to be, hypocritical.

It's not really just a few individuals though, it's apparently around 51% of our population. You know, society in general.

I thought I'd made my position clear on this. I said that marriage was a 'religious institution', not a 'Christian' one.

I know what you _said_, but you've also said God would not bless a commitment between atheists because they leave God out of the ceremony. So that leaves me wondering if God would give His blessing to a marriage where the participants left Him out of it in favor of some group of gods. What about scientologist marriages (no idea what they believe, just posing the question) or cult weddings where they worship some kind of aliens?

Where does God draw the line for his blessing? Is believing in the wrong God/gods less offensive to Him than not believing in anything at all?

However, parallels can be drawn between that and the seperation of people by words.

If you live a good life as a cow or some other animal (not sure what) you get promoted to the lowest class of human. As this low human you get a "home" which shares all the same basic functions as the "home" of the highest caste of human, say a ruler.

However could anyone argue that the quality of a single room straw hut is the same as the palace of a ruler? Sure, they are both technically a "home" but there is a world of difference.

This is in much the same way as a civil union and a marriage are both ways of joining people together.

Why, if you are not religious, would you wish to partake in a religious ceremony, and have your commitment to your partner blessed by God, and be a part of a religious institution?

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you quoted...

To answer your question, who says the homosexuals aren't religious? I mean hell, many Catholic priests seem to like sex with little boys... does this mean _they_ aren't religious?

You say it yourself; 'civil rights'. I'm not proposing that homosexuals have different civil rights. In fact, I have been unwaveringly in favour of the same civil rights being extended to include homosexuals. I just think that some attention should be brought to the religious rights of those whose institution will be affected.

How does allowing gay people to marry affect your institution?

For that matter, the institution has survived quite well even though atheists are "allowed" to marry! You consider both atheist marriage and gay marriage to be on the same level, so how can you say that gay marriage would have a huge affect on your Sacrament when atheistic marriage has not?

Actually, for me, it's the gender-specific pronoun problem that winds me up. Whether to say 'he' or 'she' really seems to be an issue. I first began to notice it in role-playing books, and I found that it jarred to see 'she' used, where I expected a 'he'. Clearly, someone imagined that people would be pleased to see that some books give equal coverage to the female pronoun and the male, alternating from chapter to chapter, but frankly, it just bugs me. Not only because it implies that people are too stupid to understand that women are encompassed by the already established term, but by the idea that using the female pronoun somehow will make us all realise that women are equal... Well, it probably comes about 100 years too late, and now, it just seems patronising.

Of course, there's an outside chance that I think about these things a little too much.

Yes, you are thinking too much. ;)

It's not that they are trying to push equality, it's that they are trying to be inclusive.

If you read an entire book where the gender pronoun was always "she" you might feel as if the book was not trying to speak to you, not written for you, or had no interest in you reading it.

I caught part of a speech yesterday from some... err.. someone. She was talking about the lack of portrayal of African Americans in history books, and how she felt quite alienated and disinterested because no one "like her" was ever written about in those books.

Or how about 'Unions' as the catagory, with subcatagories of 'marriage' on the one hand, and 'civil unions' on the other?

Shouldn't it then be "religious unions" and "civil unions"?

[Sephraem]

So you're asserting that atheists are soulless and emotionless?

Now who's being offensive?

1) No. I'm saying that the legal benefits of marriage cannot be ignored. Some people would probably be satisfied with simply living together, if it made no difference to their legal status.

2) I'm not being offensive. I didn't say that atheists are soulless and emotionless. I don't believe I even implied it.

People marry for love, and because they are "supposed" to in our society. It's the last significant step in life basically before you are considered fully and truly adult.

Atheists aren't sitting there looking at all the legal benefits of marriage and drooling over them. If that's all they cared about, wouldn't your friend be getting married?

I never suggested that that was all they cared about either.

It's not really just a few individuals though, it's apparently around 51% of our population. You know, society in general.

You can't call society in general hypocrites because a proportion of that society thinks or behaves hypocritically. That's like saying society is all female, because a proportion (say, around 51%) of that society is female.

I know what you _said_, but you've also said God would not bless a commitment between atheists because they leave God out of the ceremony. So that leaves me wondering if God would give His blessing to a marriage where the participants left Him out of it in favor of some group of gods. What about scientologist marriages (no idea what they believe, just posing the question) or cult weddings where they worship some kind of aliens?

Where does God draw the line for his blessing? Is believing in the wrong God/gods less offensive to Him than not believing in anything at all?

I have said, more times than I can even be bothered to count, 'marriage is a religious institution.'

Our concept of marriage comes from religion. Many religions expect their followers to marry. Those that do, make it clear that the union is blessed by the appropriate deity.

Though Christianity is the most prevalent religion in America, it's not the only one with a claim to the institution of marriage. For convenience, and familiarity, it's easy to draw attention to Christian beliefs and doctrine, because we are most likely to be familiar with it.

However, I'm not saying that marriage should belong to the Christians, and only them. I never have said that.

However, parallels can be drawn between that and the seperation of people by words.

If you live a good life as a cow or some other animal (not sure what) you get promoted to the lowest class of human. As this low human you get a "home" which shares all the same basic functions as the "home" of the highest caste of human, say a ruler.

However could anyone argue that the quality of a single room straw hut is the same as the palace of a ruler? Sure, they are both technically a "home" but there is a world of difference.

This is in much the same way as a civil union and a marriage are both ways of joining people together.

Why, if you are not religious, would you wish to partake in a religious ceremony, and have your commitment to your partner blessed by God, and be a part of a religious institution?

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you quoted...

I hate analogy. What probably happened was that I moved further down a train of thought that your analogy sparked, and instead of responding to the analogy, I wrote something seemingly unrelated.

The analogy really doesn't work for me. My question should, perhaps, have been, 'Why, if your straw hut contains everything you need, would you wish to move to a bigger house, where more people live, and one of them is God and He wants to tell you to live your life differently?

To answer your question, who says the homosexuals aren't religious? I mean hell, many Catholic priests seem to like sex with little boys... does this mean _they_ aren't religious?

And you thought I was being insulting?

There have been a small number of cases of sexual abuse directed towards children perpetrated by priests. Not 'many', as you assert.

Someone 'religious' who engages in such behaviour, repeatedly and unrepentantly, must reconcile within himself that it does not fit his religion, and should understand that those religious with whom he comes in contact will not - and should not be expected to - accept such behaviour as justifiable or appropriate.

I've really struggled to find the right words to explain this. What I'm trying to get at, is that if you reject the tenets of your Faith, you can't expect the behaviour you engage in to be approved of by the Faith.

How does allowing gay people to marry affect your institution?

For that matter, the institution has survived quite well even though atheists are "allowed" to marry! You consider both atheist marriage and gay marriage to be on the same level, so how can you say that gay marriage would have a huge affect on your Sacrament when atheistic marriage has not?

I'm not talking about the survival of an institution. Naturally, it appears to be flourishing.

I'm talking about the undermining of a concept, of a meaning. The religious institution is undermined by demanding that it be made available to those who should not claim it.

Yes, you are thinking too much. ;)

I knew it. :(

It's not that they are trying to push equality, it's that they are trying to be inclusive.

If you read an entire book where the gender pronoun was always "she" you might feel as if the book was not trying to speak to you, not written for you, or had no interest in you reading it.

Hmmm...

Shouldn't it then be "religious unions" and "civil unions"?

Heh. No. :D

[teflor the ranger]

BUT THEY CANNOT GET MARRIED YUU IDIOT!

They can live together forever. But they cannot marry.

So, what you're saying is that marriage is only marriage if the Federal Government says it is?

Sarvis, the meaning of marriage and its fundamental nature escapes you completely.

[Sarvis]

BUT THEY CANNOT GET MARRIED YUU IDIOT!

They can live together forever. But they cannot marry.

So, what you're saying is that marriage is only marriage if the Federal Government says it is?

Sarvis, the meaning of marriage and its fundamental nature escapes you completely.

I guess I have to find yet another way to say this.

They're defined out of marriage by that amendment. They CANNOT be married because one of them would have to be a man and one a woman. If it were two men, they couldn't be married. Becuase the term is defined to specifically exclude them.

Not to mention that no one could legally perform the ceremony.


Do I need to dumb it down some more?

[teflor the ranger]

Apparantly, Sarvis, more than simply the meaning and nature of marriage escapes you.

I'm done here.

[Sarvis]

1) No. I'm saying that the legal benefits of marriage cannot be ignored. Some people would probably be satisfied with simply living together, if it made no difference to their legal status.

2) I'm not being offensive. I didn't say that atheists are soulless and emotionless. I don't believe I even implied it.

You said atheists wouldn't get married without legal benefits. This implies, quite strongly, that atheists don't actually care about the supposed _actual_ reasons for marriage such as love and devotion. Not caring about love would say to me that a person was at least emotionless, and quite possibly soulless...

I have said, more times than I can even be bothered to count, 'marriage is a religious institution.'

Our concept of marriage comes from religion. Many religions expect their followers to marry. Those that do, make it clear that the union is blessed by the appropriate deity.

Yes, I know what you said. I'm trying to dig deeper here.

You _also_ said atheistic marriage is wrong because _God_ does not bless it.

So I guess... why is belief in other religions ok, but belief in no religion isn't?

What about two agnostics getting married? We believe there may be some form of deity/deities but that we don't really know anything about it for sure.

Back to gay marriage: Since any religious marriage is ok with you, what if someone started a new religion which DID allow for gay marriage? Would it THEN be ok to have gay marriage since it would be under the auspices of religion?

I hate analogy. What probably happened was that I moved further down a train of thought that your analogy sparked, and instead of responding to the analogy, I wrote something seemingly unrelated.

Sorry. ;)

The analogy really doesn't work for me. My question should, perhaps, have been, 'Why, if your straw hut contains everything you need, would you wish to move to a bigger house, where more people live, and one of them is God and He wants to tell you to live your life differently?

Because straw huts are dirty, poorly insulated, small and cramped?

By the way, all we REALLY need is food and water. They say shelter too, but I figure humans had to live for a couple thousand years before learning to build houses...

Would you want to live in a cave with just food near a stream your entire life? I mean, you'd have everything you NEED wouldn't you?

And you thought I was being insulting?

There have been a small number of cases of sexual abuse directed towards children perpetrated by priests. Not 'many', as you assert.

A small number that <i>we know of</i>, and to make matters worse the Church didn't do much to punish them if I remember correctly.

But I apologize. I almost didn't write that, but was too lazy to come up with something else... heh.

I've really struggled to find the right words to explain this. What I'm trying to get at, is that if you reject the tenets of your Faith, you can't expect the behaviour you engage in to be approved of by the Faith.

In Christianity the only _real_ tenet is that Jesus died for your sins. So what if gay sex is sinful? Just confess the next day!

I'm not talking about the survival of an institution. Naturally, it appears to be flourishing.

No, not really. Divorce rates keep going up, people (such as your friend )are choosing to live together rather than marry.

Perhaps, as your friend demonstrates, Religions are signing the death warrant of marriage by trying to make it exclusively theirs?

I'm talking about the undermining of a concept, of a meaning. The religious institution is undermined by demanding that it be made available to those who should not claim it.

Of course, what we are discussing is the actual meaning of the word and why there should be anyone who doesn't deserve the term to apply to them.

[Sarvis]

Apparantly, Sarvis, more than simply the meaning and nature of marriage escapes you.

Meaning: A close union of two people made to express their devotion and love to each other.

Nature: An institution in wich two (or more? ;) ) people can enter for the purposes of raising children and mutual support.


Of course, none of that matters. The point is that under that amendment two gay people could not be married. They could make a lifetime commitment, express their devotion and love, raise children and mutually support each other.

They can't call themselves married though, as the term would be defined to not apply to them.

I'm done here.

One can hope!

I don't suppose you mean the forums in general?

[Sephraem]

You said atheists wouldn't get married without legal benefits. This implies, quite strongly, that atheists don't actually care about the supposed _actual_ reasons for marriage such as love and devotion. Not caring about love would say to me that a person was at least emotionless, and quite possibly soulless...

That isn't really what I meant. What I'm trying to get at is that marriage itself is actually pretty arbitrary. Any type of union should be just as good if there are no legal or religious implications.

Yes, I know what you said. I'm trying to dig deeper here.

You _also_ said atheistic marriage is wrong because _God_ does not bless it.

So I guess... why is belief in other religions ok, but belief in no religion isn't?

I'm not saying it's wrong to not be religious, I'm just saying that marriage isn't the appropriate union for two people that aren't religious.

What about two agnostics getting married? We believe there may be some form of deity/deities but that we don't really know anything about it for sure.

Well, I don't know of any religion that's opposed to agnostics. I still feel that if you marry within any religion you should be willing to bide by its tenets.

Back to gay marriage: Since any religious marriage is ok with you, what if someone started a new religion which DID allow for gay marriage? Would it THEN be ok to have gay marriage since it would be under the auspices of religion?

Hmm. Odd as it may sound, I think my answer is 'yes'. I reserve the right to change that answer, because I need to think about it a little more.

Oddly enough, it would mean that the only people I really don't think should get married would be athiests.

Definitely have to think about this.

Sorry. ;)

No, that's fine. Analogy is a popular teaching aid and can facilitate explanation. I'm just not very good at dealing with it.

Because straw huts are dirty, poorly insulated, small and cramped?

By the way, all we REALLY need is food and water. They say shelter too, but I figure humans had to live for a couple thousand years before learning to build houses...

Would you want to live in a cave with just food near a stream your entire life? I mean, you'd have everything you NEED wouldn't you?

Some days, it sounds remarkably appealing.

A small number that <i>we know of</i>, and to make matters worse the Church didn't do much to punish them if I remember correctly.

As my limited understanding of it goes, it wasn't very well handled at all.

As an amusing and almost totally unrelated side note, a friend of mine used to teach music at an all boys Catholic School run by clergy. He related a story to me where one of the priests had brought up in discussion with him another member of staff whom he suspected of being gay. My friend, being homosexual himself, was surprised by the notion that he hadn't spotted another gay member of staff, so he asked the priest what his rationale was.

"Well," the priest said, "He's got a big bottom. From, you know..."

But I apologize. I almost didn't write that, but was too lazy to come up with something else... heh.

That's okay. We all have lazy moments. (See anecdote above.)

In Christianity the only _real_ tenet is that Jesus died for your sins. So what if gay sex is sinful? Just confess the next day!

Well, yes, and no.

If you repent your sins, which is what one must do in order to be forgiven, then you're sorry. Being sorry means you acknowledge you made a mistake, and you don't want to make the same mistake again. If you go to God, and say, I repent, when you don't, and you have every intention of leaving the church and getting up to exactly the same sinful behaviour, then you're a hypocrite, and really ought not to expect to be forgiven.

No, not really. Divorce rates keep going up, people (such as your friend )are choosing to live together rather than marry.

Perhaps, as your friend demonstrates, Religions are signing the death warrant of marriage by trying to make it exclusively theirs?

But it is theirs. Frankly, it doesn't worry me if people stop getting married. Like I said, there are other ways to make a commitment to a person. Marriage isn't the be all and end all.

What the problem is, is that people aren't committing to each other, and remaining so committed. I don't think that a piece of paper and a promise before God is what it takes to hold a relationship together. I think it's a nice way to express your commitment, though.

Of course, what we are discussing is the actual meaning of the word and why there should be anyone who doesn't deserve the term to apply to them.

Indeed.

[Sonon]

ya'll are talking about gay marriages right well i think we shouldn't do a thing to stop it because it is their lives we have no right to control other people lives they can choose for themselves they chose there lifestyle we should just leave them alone and let them do whatever they want without people always standing in their way. we no one should have a choice on gay marriages except the gay people.

[Sarvis]

That isn't really what I meant. What I'm trying to get at is that marriage itself is actually pretty arbitrary. Any type of union should be just as good if there are no legal or religious implications.

You're forgetting Tradition and Societal implications. For instance, many women have been made to feel that they are "bad" if they are not married by the time they're 30. As I believe I mentioned somewhere earlier it is just one of the things we are expected to do by society, like moving out of our parents' house.

That is, of course, changing.

I'm not saying it's wrong to not be religious, I'm just saying that marriage isn't the appropriate union for two people that aren't religious.

Also that it's inappropriate for two people who are religious but aren't accepted by any religion...

I guess what I'm having trouble understanding is why Religion is so important for you, but not any specific religion.

Ok, what would be the difference between a Religion, which is simply a large organization which purports certain beliefs in some form of deities, and a hypothetical organization which purported a belief in atheism?

Wouldn't that Atheist Society basically be a religion? Would Atheists then be allowed to marry?

I guess... maybe it sounds like having an <i>organisation</i> to back a marriage is what is important to you?

Well, I don't know of any religion that's opposed to agnostics. I still feel that if you marry within any religion you should be willing to bide by its tenets.

Well that's the thing. As an agnostic, on my optimistic days at least, I wouldn't want to get married as part of any religion. I'd only defer if my wife was a member of some religion. If we were both agnostic we'd likely get a non-religious marriage.

Hmm. Odd as it may sound, I think my answer is 'yes'. I reserve the right to change that answer, because I need to think about it a little more.

Oddly enough, it would mean that the only people I really don't think should get married would be athiests.

Definitely have to think about this.

...

No, that's fine. Analogy is a popular teaching aid and can facilitate explanation. I'm just not very good at dealing with it.

I'm also not that great at coming up with them...

Some days, it sounds remarkably appealing.

True, but then I'd never get to play MGS3... ;)

As an amusing and almost totally unrelated side note, a friend of mine used to teach music at an all boys Catholic School run by clergy. He related a story to me where one of the priests had brought up in discussion with him another member of staff whom he suspected of being gay. My friend, being homosexual himself, was surprised by the notion that he hadn't spotted another gay member of staff, so he asked the priest what his rationale was.

"Well," the priest said, "He's got a big bottom. From, you know..."

Too much twinkies?

...

...

You know, I didn't mean for that to be a pun...

Well, yes, and no.

If you repent your sins, which is what one must do in order to be forgiven, then you're sorry. Being sorry means you acknowledge you made a mistake, and you don't want to make the same mistake again. If you go to God, and say, I repent, when you don't, and you have every intention of leaving the church and getting up to exactly the same sinful behaviour, then you're a hypocrite, and really ought not to expect to be forgiven.

I don't want to get into a religious debate here... but... why is it you have to be repentant before you die? I mean, can't you die and then when you find out you actually were very wrong be incredibly sorry?

I mean, while we're alive we really have NO IDEA if we're doing something wrong or not.

But it is theirs. Frankly, it doesn't worry me if people stop getting married. Like I said, there are other ways to make a commitment to a person. Marriage isn't the be all and end all.

Hrm..

It actually is. It is currently the ONLY union accepted by society and the ONLY union with legal backing.

What the problem is, is that people aren't committing to each other, and remaining so committed. I don't think that a piece of paper and a promise before God is what it takes to hold a relationship together. I think it's a nice way to express your commitment, though.

And atheists shouldn't be allowed to express their commitment?

[Imis9]

Sonon,

In a society, everyone can not do what they want. To allow that would be anarchy.

I don't see anyone fighting for polygamy (more than 2 people in a marriage). By the logic of everyone being able to do what they want why can't they marry multiple people? Why don't folks that have lived together for 30 years, but have not got married for reasons of survivor pensions or alimony, have the same benefits of a newly married couple?

Remember, marriage is not a right, it is a state sanctioned institution or partnership between two people of the opposite sex. The goverment regulates other contractual relationships such as partnerships, LLC's, LLP's, and various corporations. Why should the government not control this contractual relationship?

It's easy to say well let's give this small minority access to that, but we need to do it with a long term point of view. Would this strengthen marriage? Probably not, since it creates a weaker definition.

Let's be blunt, religion is a creation of society to create order in the society. Most folks are against weaking marriage, therefore, the majority will fight to prevent it from being diluted. Whether you believe in one religion or another really doesn't matter, what matters is the morals and beliefs of a the society. You're right sarvis, even a non religious society like communist china had a religion of the supremacy of the state. We can look throughout history and see that religion has always existed in some form for us to explain nature and our own beliefs in what society should look like.