Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships?

[Theben]

Actually I'm almost finished with my coffee.

[MrFun]

oh, ok

[Ben Kenobi]

Traditional marriage included polygamy, and in a few places polyandry.

So? Do any of the places that allow polygamy allow also for homosexual marriage?

this evolution of the term can continue

Then it isn't traditional to evolve the term. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

The government could say "marriage is a contract to join bloodlines and any joining that can not lead to children being created does not count as marriage".

So this is a definition of marriage, you would support, GePap?

The state is less able to justify saying "marriage is between two people who love each other- but only of different sexes".

Does the state, in fact, say such a thing? I don't see love anywhere in the requirements, just one man and one woman.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Does the state, in fact, say such a thing? I don't see love anywhere in the requirements, just one man and one woman.

AND A BURRITO!!

[Agathon]

Of course they shouldn't be able to get married and neither should any of the other "deviants" we have "staying" in our "holiday camps".

[Mercator]

I'm afraid I'll be going on a bit of a tangent here, but I am going somewhere with this. Ben, what do you think about the following two articles?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b3767016.htm
http://www.ijtihad.org/ideas.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

Mercator:

Islamic lands place severe restrictions on women, spawn rapacious rulers, and lack a separation between religion and state.

The sooner we realize the absence of ideas and encourage, freedom of thought, creativity, and intellectual self-determination, the sooner will we recover some semblance of our past glory

You touch on an interesting point. It came up in my RCIA class. There is a balance between tradition, and traditionalism. There are different ways, to express faith, but the essential doctrine will remain the same.

I agree that there should be a seperation between church and state. It would be shocking to hear a Mennonite argue otherwise, given that they have been traditionally outcasts. In fact, they tend to shun politics because it is seen as becoming too involved with the world. What is another matter, is for a Catholic to say the same thing. Catholics are changing their conception of the role of faith, and have been doing so for the past 300 years. They are starting to realise that keeping the state out of religion, assists the religion, as it does the state.

Now, I want to be clear as to what this seperation entails. I'm a little cautious when considering Muslim writers on this concept, but it does not mean that faith should not interact with the state, but rather there is no established religion, and de facto religious freedom.

[boann]

i don't think the govt should set up what rules for morality. i think if two people want to be married then
they should be allowed to regardless of sex or color or whatever. its just a commitment which is there regardless of the law.. it just provides for legal support.
i mean do you even know what a gay couple goes thru when one is just in the hospital... they aren't even considered members of the family. its just terrible how some laws can set up situations that cause so much grief and pain. the govt just needs to get out of the morality business and stick to protecting and upholding and defending.

i mean.. they should get us some more jobs in country
and let folks pursue their own happiness... i mean that is in the constitution isn't it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by boann
i mean do you even know what a gay couple goes thru when one is just in the hospital... they aren't even considered members of the family.

But BK thinks they should have to go through that pain since they can't have children... Even though heterosexual couples who can't have children are allowed that right

[Ben Kenobi]

i don't think the govt should set up what rules for morality.

Government does this all the time. Laws have no other purpose but to establish what conduct will or will not be accepted.

Why have laws against murder?

[boann]

laws that prevent people from killing each other are not the same as dictating how a person expresses love or who they want to love.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

Actually, I think a sick man should be able to be seen by anyone he gives permission.

What a radical concept.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ming:

Actually, I think a sick man should be able to be seen by anyone he gives permission.

What a radical concept.

Fair enough... but you still continue to use the no children argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, ignoring the fact that that same right is given to heterosexual couples who can't or won't have children.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So? Do any of the places that allow polygamy allow also for homosexual marriage?

No. They are real traditional, not fake traditional.

Then it isn't traditional to evolve the term. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not the one arguing about 'traditional' I am the one poinitng out that this 'traditional marruage spoken about is not that traditional at all.

So this is a definition of marriage, you would support, GePap?

One that is consistent and does not descriminate.

Does the state, in fact, say such a thing? I don't see love anywhere in the requirements, just one man and one woman.

If the point of marriage is to procrate-there are other possible mating strategies to be used (hence polygamy, polyandry). If you start saying "one man, one woman", you have to give further reasoning for the limited choices.

[MrFun]

Wow -- I think we got Bennie nailed.

[Ben Kenobi]

laws that prevent people from killing each other are not the same as dictating how a person expresses love or who they want to love.

And the government does not do the latter. They can have a ceremony, slip a ring on their finger, call it a marriage, but it will not be recognised by the state as such.

you still continue to use the no children argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, ignoring the fact that that same right is given to heterosexual couples who can't or won't have children.

In giving the right to some, others also have the right. Consider this. Suppose we did say that one had to express an intention to have children in order to get married. What will happen? Everyone who gets married will 'express the intention.'

In short, with marriage as it stands, it is impossible to enforce such a restriction. However, it is possible to limit marriage to those relationships likely to produce children, and this we find between a man and a woman, and do not find between two men or two women.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
Wow -- I think we got Bennie nailed.

nahhh... he will just continue to ignore the subject of heterosexual couples who can't have kids or won't and know it before they get married. To him, they should be allowed to get married, but that gays can't since they can't have children.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Suppose we did say that one had to express an intention to have children in order to get married. What will happen? Everyone who gets married will 'express the intention.'

In short, with marriage as it stands, it is impossible to enforce such a restriction. However, it is possible to limit marriage to those relationships likely to produce children, and this we find between a man and a woman, and do not find between two men or two women.

We can force engaged couples to get pregnant so they can't get around falsely expressing intent, when they actually marry.

Oh wait -- no, because that would mean they would be engaging in immoral premarital sex.

[MrFun]

editted

[MrFun]

editted

[MrFun]

editted

[MrFun]

WTF happened!?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In short, with marriage as it stands, it is impossible to enforce such a restriction. However, it is possible to limit marriage to those relationships likely to produce children, and this we find between a man and a woman, and do not find between two men or two women.

Oh come on... if children is the SOLE reason for you not allowing marriage between gay couples, straight people should be forced to prove they can have children... a simple test will prove it. But you don't advocate that all...

Just admit your anti gay marriage stance is purely for religious reasons and have nothing to do with logic... since you still haven't come up with one logical reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

[Ben Kenobi]

if children is the SOLE reason

First, I do think love and desire to have children need to both be there in marriage.

Secondly,

a simple test will prove it.

I just argued why a test would not work.

Surely you aren't THAT naive, Ming.

You can rant about 'illogical, etc.' but that does not refute the arguements I have made.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I just argued why a test would not work.

Surely you aren't THAT naive, Ming.

You can rant about 'illogical, etc.' but that does not refute the arguements I have made.

You just argued why a test wouldn't work for those who won't attempt to have childredn. Your argument doesn't work for those who phyiscally can't. A test will prove that.

So you either must argue that couples MUST be tested, and if they can't, they aren't allowed to get married... or just give up on using this as a defense for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

[Ben Kenobi]

Eh,we get your point Mr. Fun.

[MrFun]

The server is ****ed up.

[MrFun]

The server is ****ed up.

[Ned]

If Gays make marriage legal, religions will invent a new word for it.

[Mercator]

It wasn't particularly separation of religion and state I was hinting at, even though that is a part of it, but rather the origins and evolution of religion. Islam in my examples, but I think it applies equally to Christianity.

You second quote is very applicable, and I think it contrasts sharply with what you say:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are different ways, to express faith, but the essential doctrine will remain the same.

You may experience it as such, but I think Christianity suffers from the same problem Islam does. The biggest difference is that most Christian states are secular, while most Islamic states aren't.

Some of the most basic ideas of a religion will inevitably remain the same, but for the most part it should (and has) adapt to the ever-changing society it is a part of.

Source: http://www.ijtihad.org/ideas.htm
These streams of contingent ideas continued to flow and enrich not only the Islamic World but also the entire human civilization. Every new stream of ideas added a newer, deeper and richer dimension to the Islamic world. In its time it manifested the zenith of human achievements in both corporeal as well as spiritual sense. This great epoch in human history was essentially the outcome of the human mind processing the pure idea of Islam.

Today, the Islamic Ummah is in disarray. It has not only lost its past glory, but has also lost the capacity to comprehend the virtues and the causes of its past glory.

From their original inspiring creative melting pot of ideas Judaism/Christianity/Islam, perhaps inevitably all religions (ideologies/philosophies), turn into a stagnant quagmire of dogmas.

But instead of adapting to new situations, creating, religion seems to hark back to the past and bring up a Bible-quote, so to speak.

To condense it down to one sentence: I don't understand how rigidly sticking to a definition of marriage or rejecting homosexuality, whatever, is in line with ancient traditions of religion such as freedom of though, creativity and self-determination.

In our modern, Western, society homosexuality has taken its place and it is finally being accepted. How then can you defend attacking it?