City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[DanS]

As far as I know, very few protestant denominations recognize marriage as a sacrament. For all intents and purposes, civil marriage is separate from religion, besides the ceremony itself.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
As far as I know, very few protestant denominations recognize marriage as a sacrament.

But they still see it as holy. If they come up with their own damn terminology, I will use it (damned anti-papist weirdos!)

[DanS]

Well, religion doesn't bother to get involved in a divorce of a civil marriage. I guess marriage is holier sometimes than others.

[DanS]

MrFun: A quick google shows that in 1955 according to Gallup, after school desegration was ordered by the courts, 72% in East favored desegregation, 61% in the Midwest, 77% in the West, 20% in the South. So overall, that's a solid majority for one part of desegregation and reflects a judicial affirmation of the majority view over the minority view.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ming
They get dragged behind the back of pick up trucks...

Nope, that was one of the black folks that also supposedly have equal rights in the U.S. We get pistol-whipped and tied to fence post to die of exposure in the middle of nowhere.

ANYhoo, to Gavin Newcom. A rising star in CA politics if there ever was one. If the people of SF want to recognize gay marriage, don't they have the right? Doesn't hurt nobody anywhere else...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nope, that was one of the black folks that also supposedly have equal rights in the U.S. We get pistol-whipped and tied to fence post to die of exposure in the middle of nowhere.

Sorry... my mistake... but thanks for making the same point I was trying to make.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

But the fact remains, that churches treat them like second class citizens. Nothing you can say changes that fact.

By that definition, the Catholic church treats me as a second class citizen by refusing to allow me access to communion, even though I am a baptised believer.

It is dangerous to apply notions of citizenship to the church. We are all sinners, and in need of repentence before we can enter the church, as members, we need to all repent from our sins.

If homosexuality is a sin, to allow homosexuals to marry, is an endorsement of sin. Therefore, the religion is treating homosexuals with preferential treatment, as opposed to everyone else. They are saying, your sin is okay.

This is the route to destruction, because to endorse one sin, over another, fails to encourage those believers who resist sin, of other forms.

What does having to prove a postitive benefit to "all" mariages have to do with this?

It is the inverse of my question, an unfair question to boot.

As stated before, any marriage that can be effected simply because some gay people that you don't even know get married is truely troubled already and has nothing really to do with gay marriages.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Really, you can do better than this.

What you are saying is that, if a marriage collapses, it is not because of gay people, but because they were troubled before. This neglects to consider the origins of their problems, which may have different causes.

I acknowledge that not all marital difficulties have something to do with homosexuality. What I do not agree with is that changing the definition is not going to affect those marriages already in existence.

Consider the philosophy, that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, as espoused by numerous people in this very thread. What is that going to do for a couple thinking of divorce? Rather than fighting for their marriage, they will be more likely to give up.

Gay people getting married has no effect on regular marriages...

Now, how can you prove this?

Your comments in other threads about lost benefits (which is a crock to begin with) doesn't hold water, because in your own words, it's ok if gays marry, but only if to members of the opposite sex... so the net effect of total marriages would remain the same...

This totally destroys the arguments that gay people will not get married, that they are discriminated against. If they can get married to a partner of the opposite sex, then why do we need gay marriage at all?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

By that definition, the Catholic church treats me as a second class citizen by refusing to allow me access to communion, even though I am a baptised believer.

the church is a private organization. its up to them to make up their own rules. if you feel like a second class citizen then leave.

If homosexuality is a sin, to allow homosexuals to marry, is an endorsement of sin. Therefore, the religion is treating homosexuals with preferential treatment, as opposed to everyone else. They are saying, your sin is okay.

wrong. you cannot be held accountable for the sins of others.

Consider the philosophy, that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, as espoused by numerous people in this very thread. What is that going to do for a couple thinking of divorce? Rather than fighting for their marriage, they will be more likely to give up.

thats not your problem or mine.

Now, how can you prove this?

Now, how can you disprove this?

[Ben Kenobi]

So our government never should have compelled the removal of legal segregation because they would not be able to force everyone to give blacks equal social standing?

You forget the words of Dr. King.

"The law may not be able to make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me."

You are not lynched, you are not beaten, you are not segregated, you are not taught in seperate schools, you are not dragged behind pickup trucks, with the government looking askance, you are equal in every sense of the law.

What you desire, cannot be given, cannot be granted by the government.

also based on social ostracization and sexual degradation of gays.

Ostracised? How can you say you are ostracised, when you have numerous television shows devoted to the glorification of your lifestyle? When people bend over backwards to provide accomodation and acceptance?

Sexual degredation? Are gays being raped?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This totally destroys the arguments that gay people will not get married, that they are discriminated against. If they can get married to a partner of the opposite sex, then why do we need gay marriage at all?

Twice I posted responses to this nonsense argument that you ignored. The last time here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=3

By the same logic, it's not against anyone rights to ban interracial marriage, for as I said: Yep, dem negroes have the same raights ta' marry as anyone else, so long as they jes' marry utha negroes.

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims as to the effect of gay marriage based on speculation and bias. Gays aren't under the obligation to prove why their marriages wouldn't hurt, any way--it's the opponent's job to prove they would. Can't prove a negative, after all.

[Ben Kenobi]

LoA:

its up to them to make up their own rules. if you feel like a second class citizen then leave.

Then so it will be for the homosexuals.

wrong. you cannot be held accountable for the sins of others.

You miss the point entirely. The church has a responsibility to care for their flock, to encourage them from sinning.

thats not your problem or mine.

That does not refute the fact that the philosophy of marriage as a contract is corrosive towards marriage in general. Thank you LoA.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ming:
By that definition, the Catholic church treats me as a second class citizen by refusing to allow me access to communion, even though I am a baptised believer.

It is dangerous to apply notions of citizenship to the church. We are all sinners, and in need of repentence before we can enter the church, as members, we need to all repent from our sins.

If homosexuality is a sin, to allow homosexuals to marry, is an endorsement of sin. Therefore, the religion is treating homosexuals with preferential treatment, as opposed to everyone else. They are saying, your sin is okay.

This is the route to destruction, because to endorse one sin, over another, fails to encourage those believers who resist sin, of other forms.

A lot of words that don't change the fact that they are treated like second class citizens. While you may be able to justify it in your mind, it doesn't change the fact.

It is the inverse of my question, an unfair question to boot.

Well... nice attempt at not answering the quesiton. The issue for you has always been some strange notion that allowing gays to marry would hurt straight married couples... something you have offered no proof on.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Really, you can do better than this.

I see... no real answer. Just another side step on your part.

What you are saying is that, if a marriage collapses, it is not because of gay people, but because they were troubled before. This neglects to consider the origins of their problems, which may have different causes.

No... I'm asking you to prove how to unkown gay people getting married can break up a straight marriage. Your whole line is that changing the definition will cause problems for straight married couples... and I again ASK HOW! Problems in marriages are between the couple, not from people who they don't even know.

I acknowledge that not all marital difficulties have something to do with homosexuality.

That's a start... but prove where it HAS ANYTHING to do with other peoples marital difficulties... The simple fact is, it doesn't. find me one couple that broke up and said allowing gays to get married forced them to break up. Good luck...

Consider the philosophy, that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, as espoused by numerous people in this very thread. What is that going to do for a couple thinking of divorce? Rather than fighting for their marriage, they will be more likely to give up.

People will give up because they are weak or no longer see the need to fight... not because unkown gays are allowed to get married.

Now, how can you prove this?

You can't prove a word you are saying either... I'm using simple logic, which you seem to be ignoring. Again, find a couple that claims they are divorced because gays are allowed to get married... you can't. So that's more proof than you have.

This totally destroys the arguments that gay people will not get married, that they are discriminated against. If they can get married to a partner of the opposite sex, then why do we need gay marriage at all?

Because it's a matter of their choice. Again, you have stated that you hope gay people get married to members of the opposite sex... but not to members of the same sex... which just shows that you are discriminating against them and trying to cram your own morality down their throats... let them become partners with people of their choice... not yours. How would you feel if your neighboor was telling you who you could or could not make love to....

[Ben Kenobi]

By the same logic, it's not against anyone rights to ban interracial marriage, for as I said: Yep, dem negroes have the same raights ta' marry as anyone else, so long as they jes' marry utha negroes.

And I refuted this argument by the argument that men and women are not interchangeable within the context of marriage. It makes no difference to a marriage, if you put a black woman in place of a white woman, where you have a very concrete difference between a man and a woman.

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims as to the effect of gay marriage based on speculation and bias.

Concept of marriage as a contract is corrosive to marriage in general. Deal with this argument.

Secondly, we could go on this argument forever. You cannot show any intrinsic benefits to society from gay marriage, therefore, there is no reason to extend benefits to their relationships.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Then so it will be for the homosexuals.

thats right. if the church wants to treat them that way its fine. but the state has to recognize them are normal class citizens because the state isnt a private entity.

You miss the point entirely. The church has a responsibility to care for their flock, to encourage them from sinning.

when you mean flock, do you mean everyone, or just members of their church.

That does not refute the fact that the philosophy of marriage as a contract is corrosive towards marriage in general. Thank you LoA.

thats because i dont know what the effect on marriage in general is. and frankly, it doesnt matter. what matters is you, and your marriage, not someone else.

[Arrian]

That does not refute the fact that the philosophy of marriage as a contract is corrosive towards marriage in general.

Marriage has always been a contract, so I guess it's been ****ed up since the beginning. It's changed a bit over time here in the West, obviously, what with women no longer being viewed as property and all.

Personally, probably since I'm not gay, I don't care what it's called, so long as people are not denied rights under the law based upon religious dogma. Therefore, calling it "civil union" and giving it the same legal rights as marriage is fine by me. But I think I can understand why gay people might not be satisfied with that.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You cannot show any intrinsic benefits to society from gay marriage, therefore, there is no reason to extend benefits to their relationships.

You continue to ignore the benefits to the individuals allowed... and when it comes to marriage, that's what it is all about.

You are just trying to discriminate against gays while hiding behind the typical, show me how it helps society, or it will hurt me, instead of thinking about the people involved. Which is pretty selfish considering there is NO PROVEN harm to you or society by allowing it, but a a big gain for those involved.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No true Scotsman fallacy. Really, you can do better than this.

What you are saying is that, if a marriage collapses, it is not because of gay people, but because they were troubled before. This neglects to consider the origins of their problems, which may have different causes.

I acknowledge that not all marital difficulties have something to do with homosexuality. What I do not agree with is that changing the definition is not going to affect those marriages already in existence.

Consider the philosophy, that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, as espoused by numerous people in this very thread. What is that going to do for a couple thinking of divorce? Rather than fighting for their marriage, they will be more likely to give up.

What the.....?

Are you blatantly saying that even some marital difficulties have something to do with homosexuality (besides those where at least one of the spouses is actually homosexual)? Would you think that's reasonable at all?

As for what changing the definition of marriage is and it's implications for divorces, that warrants just as big a "what the......?"

Ben, answer this. If you got married under current circumstances (ie: ban on homosexual marriage) and all of a sudden homosexuals were granted full equality in the eyes of the law, would you be more likely to get divorced if your marriage ran into trouble than you would be if homosexual marriage remained a no-no? I mean for the love of pete - how can allowing gays to get married change your own personal views on what marriage and its commitments mean?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And I refuted this argument by the argument that men and women are not interchangeable within the context of marriage. It makes no difference to a marriage, if you put a black woman in place of a white woman, where you have a very concrete difference between a man and a woman.

And this is an arbitrary distinction based on bias. If the man and woman are brother and sister, are they that interchangeable for you? Keep twisting in circles.

You say gays have a right to marry, limited to someone of the opposite gender. If the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is enough of a qualification for you to say someone has equal rights, then placing a limit on interracial, interethnic, etc. marriages should pose no problem for you, as such folks will still have a right to marry someone, just someone of only a particular variety. Just further qualifications for marriage.

Concept of marriage as a contract is corrosive to marriage in general. Deal with this argument.

It's not my argument, so why should I deal with it? You deal with it. I've not seen an effective proof from you that it IS corrosive, at any rate.

Secondly, we could go on this argument forever. You cannot show any intrinsic benefits to society from gay marriage, therefore, there is no reason to extend benefits to their relationships.

We've shown benefits in past discussion, you even acknowledge that it would encourage stable, monogomous relationships for gays which would be a good thing in general. However, the burden does not rest on our position, but yours. Equal access to government-ordained rights and priveledges does not require one to prove one is worthy of them. It is the burden of those who wish to deny such rights to demonstrate the harm of granting them, something you've categorically failed to do, your conjectures not withstanding.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kontiki:

I am arguing by analogy.

Just as the concept of marriage as a contract will corrode some marriages, so will redefining marriage corrode others.

I am exempt not because there is no effect, but rather, that I (and my girlfriend), reject this philosophy.

Of course, I could also drag in some other arguments, that in Canada, we may lose all marriage benefits, because of cases made by folks like LoA, that marriage is not within the realm of the state. Guaranteed, they will not grandfather the benefits, to those who were married before the change.

[Boris Godunov]

DP

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, we could go on this argument forever. You cannot show any intrinsic benefits to society from gay marriage, therefore, there is no reason to extend benefits to their relationships.

Umm...you conceded this very point in the other thread. Remember, I listed a bunch of benefits society receives from marriage in general and you agreed with them? Or are you now saying that those benefits only exist for straight people? And if you are, I'd like to see you give some reasons for that.

[Ben Kenobi]

And this is an arbitrary distinction based on bias.

No, it is not. There is a concrete difference between a man and a woman, with respect to marriage.

If the man and woman are brother and sister, are they that interchangeable for you?

I'm reminded of a very old idea. If a man marries his sister, with whom will he hunt? Marriage outside of one's own family has tangible benefits in the provision of extended family.

You say gays have a right to marry, limited to someone of the opposite gender. If the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is enough of a qualification for you to say someone has equal rights, then placing a limit on interracial, interethnic, etc. marriages should pose no problem for you,

Already argued against, on many different points. One, there is no right to marry. Two, the only defense of limiting interracial and interethnic marriage implies that they will corrupt the bloodlines. MtG made this point quite eloquently.

We've shown benefits in past discussion, you even acknowledge that it would encourage stable, monogomous relationships for gays which would be a good thing in general.

Put words in my mouth? I do not agree that such a thing would necessarily be beneficial for society. Rather I argue that it would not solve the health problems homosexuals already experience. Is the solution for an alcoholic to give him a nice bed in the bar so that he does not end up in the street?

Equal access to government-ordained rights and priveledges

No. That point is not for government ordained rights, but rather for fundamental rights. The government delivers pensions to veterans, a right entirely created by the government. Should they be required to disburse the benefit to everyone provided that no veteran have his pension lowered? I would argue that the onus, for government created rights and benefits, lies on those claiming the benefits, to show that they are indeed worthy of the benefits.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Ming
No... I'm asking you to prove how to unkown gay people getting married can break up a straight marriage. Your whole line is that changing the definition will cause problems for straight married couples... and I again ASK HOW!

One version of this argument might be that the problem applies not to the married couple but to their children. If there are all different types of sex and violence on TV, it may not affect parents, but might make it more difficult to teach appropriate conduct to children. Similarly, if there are all different types of "marriage" around it is more difficult for religious parents to teach their children what a religious marriage means.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would argue that the onus, for government created rights and benefits, lies on those claiming the benefits, to show that they are indeed worthy of the benefits.

So the crack head mother of 12 children who spends her welfair money on more drugs has shown she is more worthy to receive a benefit than two gays who want to get married...



At first, their was a penality in the tax structure for those that got married. Living in sin actually was better for tax purposes.... Married straight couples NEVER had to prove that they were worthy of the benefits... so why should gays. Oh that's right, they are gay and you disapprove of them for solely religious reasons

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Kontiki:

I am arguing by analogy.

Just as the concept of marriage as a contract will corrode some marriages, so will redefining marriage corrode others.

I am exempt not because there is no effect, but rather, that I (and my girlfriend), reject this philosophy.

But it's a useless, non-sensical analogy. How exactly would it corrode any marriages? And why would other people embrace the philosophy, treating marriage as anything less than they do now? You admit that it wouldn't change your opinions on it, why would it change others'? I don't subscribe to your religious beliefs, and I can unequivocably tell you that whether or not I get married and how I treat a marriage has absolutely nothing to do with how the government views them from a legal perspective.

Of course, I could also drag in some other arguments, that in Canada, we may lose all marriage benefits, because of cases made by folks like LoA, that marriage is not within the realm of the state. Guaranteed, they will not grandfather the benefits, to those who were married before the change.

Well, I'm not arguing a libertarian position like LoA, but it's still a non-starter. Most of those benefits are built in to the government recognizing the contract and/or the contract itself. (survivorship, implied POA, visitation rights, etc).

[Ming]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Similarly, if there are all different types of "marriage" around it is more difficult for religious parents to teach their children what a religious marriage means.

If you are religious, and you want to pass that on to your children, it is your problem to do so within the confines of society as it is. There is a seperation of Church and State... it's not the states job to make it easier for one religion over another to pass on their traditions and beliefs. It is the job of the parent and the Church to do that.

One could argue just the opposite as well. By enforcing the view of the religious right, you are telling children that the only way to live your life is one prescribed by a given religion, and that you have no choice in your life.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You forget the words of Dr. King.

"The law may not be able to make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me."

You are not lynched, you are not beaten, you are not segregated, you are not taught in seperate schools, you are not dragged behind pickup trucks, with the government looking askance, you are equal in every sense of the law.

What you desire, cannot be given, cannot be granted by the government.

Ostracised? How can you say you are ostracised, when you have numerous television shows devoted to the glorification of your lifestyle? When people bend over backwards to provide accomodation and acceptance?

Sexual degredation? Are gays being raped?

Just because we suffer less legal discrimination than blacks have suffered in the past, does not mean we do not face ANY discrimination -- stop using the all or nothing argument.


Ostracized as in a gay teenager risks being disowned by his family just because he is gay.
Ocstracized as in being threatened with physical violence by your peers for being gay.
Ostracized as in being harassed at work for being gay, and when you report it to the appropriate office, they don't give a rat's ass.
Ostracized as in . . . . well, I'm sure you get the picture.

Yeah, it's fabulous that the media culture has embraced gays and included us by portraying us in more realistic, positive images, but sometimes the media culture does not accurately portray social reality.

And when people celebrated the brutal, inhuman beating of Matthew Shepherd in public places while he was still in a coma in the hospital, it did not strike me as bending over backwards to accepting us as human beings worthy of respect. But on the other hand, you had a majority of people who found the beating repugnant and cruel -- but I will never forget the fact that there were others who publicly celebrated this heinous crime.


As for sexual degradation, what I meant by that, was that homophobics like to overly sexualize meaingful, committed relationships between gays to tar us as not being worthy of finding someone of the same gender whom we love, and with whom we would like to share our life with through other means than just sex.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, it is not. There is a concrete difference between a man and a woman, with respect to marriage.

A distinction that has not been proven to be substantially different for same-gendered couples. Unless you're saying that men and women aren't equal? Regardless, the same argument could be made there are concrete differences between black men and white women, and vice-versa.

I'm reminded of a very old idea. If a man marries his sister, with whom will he hunt? Marriage outside of one's own family has tangible benefits in the provision of extended family.

Nobody's hunting here. But government dispensation of marriage licenses isn't dependent on such a "tangible benefit." After all, under this rationale, what benefit is there to marrying someone who happens to be the sole member of her family? And marrying one's sister could produce benefits, such as retaining property within the family and extending partner benefits to one's sister, were she in need.

Already argued against, on many different points. One, there is no right to marry.

Weren't you the one earlier who said it was in the constitution? Which is it now?

Rights to marry are given by the states. As has been explained to you many times before, the U.S. Constitution's enumeration of rights doesn't limit our people to just those rights.

Two, the only defense of limiting interracial and interethnic marriage implies that they will corrupt the bloodlines. MtG made this point quite eloquently.

I don't see why this is any less sound of a rationale than the one that says allowing gay marriage will somehow corrupt marriage as an institution.

Put words in my mouth? I do not agree that such a thing would necessarily be beneficial for society. Rather I argue that it would not solve the health problems homosexuals already experience. Is the solution for an alcoholic to give him a nice bed in the bar so that he does not end up in the street?

Which health problems are those? Vagueness is your forte, I know, but I want specifics what you won't think will be solved my marriage, and also how the institution does solve those things for heterosexuals, and why it would do so for them and not gays. That's

No. That point is not for government ordained rights, but rather for fundamental rights. The government delivers pensions to veterans, a right entirely created by the government. Should they be required to disburse the benefit to everyone provided that no veteran have his pension lowered?

Veterans benefits are akin pensions alloted to any employees of a business. They were employed by the U.S. Government, so the government can give them those benefits as reward for their service. That's an entirely different matter from the government handing out marriage licenses to anyone who comes to city hall and signs a paper, which involves no service to the government or (as is often the case for veterans) compulsion.

I would argue that the onus, for government created rights and benefits, lies on those claiming the benefits, to show that they are indeed worthy of the benefits.

Not so if the benefits are already dispensed to one segment of the population and in a discriminatory manner while doing so.

And I have to address this:

"The law may not be able to make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me."

Which is precisely our point. The law may not make homophobic *******s accept us, but it can stop them from denying us the ability they hold to form legal marriages with partners we love.

[chequita guevara]

What about recognized religions that allow gay marriage?

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What about recognized religions that allow gay marriage?

First... BK thinks all those people will burn in hell

But seriously... as it is now, religions that do recognize gay marriages in states/countries that don't recogonize it means very little to the rights that gays are trying to achieve. A religious rite not supported by the state can not provide the rights that gays are fighting for. It goes way beyond being able to claim you are married.