Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[MrBaggins]

No but cultures both definitely had marriage, prior to christianity... for example... and subsequent societies based many of their concepts on the Hellenic world. Hence, monotheistic religions (or religions in general, FWIW) certainly didn't invent or hold patent to marriage.

As for the word... most Christians who married way back when didn't speak English either. The etymology of marriage would be Anglo-French... essentially deriving Nordic and (surprise, surprise) Greek roots.

Again, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Ming]

Yeah... while marriages are now "blessed" in the eyes of God by Religious ceremonies... the concept of marriage is not the sole exclusive property of religions... Heck, one could argue that it's really the property of the Military since Ship Captains can perform such cerimonies....

So for one or more religions to attempt to lay claims on the word marriage, and demand exclusive rights to determine what is and what isn't.... is really kind of silly.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, you seem to be arguing now against marriage per se which is inconsistent with an argument that we should allow gay marriages. You do this by saying that any legally imposed obligations on a domestic partner to stay in the relationship is disfavored. However, that is exactly what marriage brings with it. Today, gay and lesbian couples can split with ease with virtually no lingering obligations to their partner. This never happens with "the divorces" because there are continuing obligations of support and there are division of property issues to be considered. There may be also issues involving custody of children.

The battle for gay marriages is not only a battle of rights. There are significant obligations involved in marriages that tend to keep couples together because the cost of separation is so high.

[MrFun]

Just as the ideology of "separate spheres" was an idealization of gender relations in the 19th century, rather than being reality, so is the ideology of "sanctity of marriage" is today, a heterosexist, conservative idealization of marriage, rather than being reality.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
*SNIP*
Today, gay and lesbian couples can split with ease with virtually no lingering obligations to their partner.
*SNIP*

Thats a strawman argument.

If the gay and lesbian couples were married, then they'd, by definition have shared property, and more financial obligations and motives to stay together (or actually negative conotations when they separated.) There'd also be more basis for them becoming adoptive parents, producing the same dilemnas for custody. Its also been argued that there'd be less stress associated with negative stigma.

You can't compare symptoms of two different scenario's if you're using radically different rules to govern both, and then pawn that off as a comparitive situation.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
At least I haven´t seen them speaking openly against a Civil Union (which would grant them the full Rights of a Marriage).

So we should ask this Question once again to all Homosexual and also to all religious people:

[snip]

So, if the gay members of Apolyton don´t answer this Question, you could be right with your statement.

Well, it looks like the gay posters here don't like this idea, so it seems that I was right after all.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Well, it looks like the gay posters here don't like this idea, so it seems that I was right after all.

I specifically addressed this point two pages ago. You seem to have ignored it.

[Arrian]

The reason I had shifted my position to essentially match Rogans (that is if I understand him correctly: civil unions for all under the State, leave "marriage" for churches and other private organizations, with no added legal significance attached to it) was simple appeasement: hoping it would satisfy the religionistas while providing equal rights for all under the law.

If that won't satisfy them (or at least the majority of them), nevermind, GAY MARRIAGE NOW!

-Arrian

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ming
So for one or more religions to attempt to lay claims on the word marriage, and demand exclusive rights to determine what is and what isn't.... is really kind of silly.

I think demanding "exclusive rights" to have my own opinion is fair enough. Why do you want to remove that? Isn't that attitude a little bit facist?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I think demanding "exclusive rights" to have my own opinion is fair enough.

But what does "owning your opinion" have to do with forbidding any non-religious institutions to perform marriage?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But what does "owning your opinion" have to do with forbidding any non-religious institutions to perform marriage?

Why would you want to forbid non-religious institutions from performing marriages?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Thats a strawman argument.

If the gay and lesbian couples were married, then they'd, by definition have shared property, and more financial obligations and motives to stay together (or actually negative conotations when they separated.) There'd also be more basis for them becoming adoptive parents, producing the same dilemnas for custody. Its also been argued that there'd be less stress associated with negative stigma.

You can't compare symptoms of two different scenario's if you're using radically different rules to govern both, and then pawn that off as a comparitive situation.

Mr.Baggins, just a small point. I agree with you. It is gay marriage mega-advocate Whaleboy who argues against obligations as being conterproductive and destabalizing. He seems to be arguing both for gay marriage and against gay marriage at the same time.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I think demanding "exclusive rights" to have my own opinion is fair enough. Why do you want to remove that? Isn't that attitude a little bit facist?

What you think within your own consciousness is up to you.

"Exclusive rights" in this case were referring to a concept, that of marriage, which as a concept has existed, long before the basis that you've made of a "religious institution"... and long before the creation of the concept of Fascism, for what its worth.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why would you want to forbid non-religious institutions from performing marriages?

I don't. Yo do seem like it however. You don't want the State (the archetype of the non-religious institution) not to perform marriages. I fail to see what this demand has to do with "owning your opinion".

[Ned]

Oh, btw, and this is a little off topic, but I soon think that Muslims will themselves demand the right to have multiple wives consistent with their religion.

How does one argue against this after the gay marriage revolution?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Mr.Baggins, just a small point. I agree with you. It is gay marriage mega-advocate Whaleboy argues against obligations as being conterproductive and destabalizing. He seems to be arguing both for gay marriage and against gay marriage at the same time.

Thats fine then...

I'd say that I've come to the conclusion that we need to recognise that marriage as a secular or social construct has become more important, in day to day life, than a religious or cultural construct, thus we need to separate the principals from each other.

Thus religious marriages shouldn't automatically confer privileges due to civil unions (which would effect secular privilege or benefit)... There should be a separate civil ceremony or contractual agreement, from any religious ceremony. Different religious institutions should be permitted to have different rules as to whom can marry whom, but none of that should effect civil or social rights.

Falling short of that, allow gays to marry in secular manners.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
How does one argue against this after the gay marriage revolution?

I don't know. Is there any non-religious argument against polygamy? I mean, polygamous relationship are sure supposed to be more oppressive and unequal than monogamous ones, but then again, we don't monogamous marriages even though it can be a horrible place of violence and oppression.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't. Yo do seem like it however. You don't want the State (the archetype of the non-religious institution) not to perform marriages. I fail to see what this demand has to do with "owning your opinion".

Spiffor, historically in European civilization, marriages are valid even without solemnization either by the state or by religious institutions. In Kalifornia, we recognize "domestic partnerships" simply by registration. (Gay and lesbians.) Many US states recognize so-called "common law" marriages which are comprise people living together and holding themselves out as being married. All US states must recognize common law married couples as being married.

Do you know why France, or indeed, any European state requires a license or solemnization ceremony by the state in order to be validly married? Would it be totally offensive to the state for people to simply register their status as being married to be treated as such by the state?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Why would you want to forbid non-religious institutions from performing marriages?

Beats me - that your arguement.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know. Is there any non-religious argument against polygamy? I mean, polygamous relationship are sure supposed to be more oppressive and unequal than monogamous ones, but then again, we don't monogamous marriages even though it can be a horrible place of violence and oppression.

If you seperate out inbreeding, then probably very little indeed; while you may have a slight genetic advantage to 4 separate pairs, due to genetic diversity, those pairings may not have the same genetic advatage as a single strong set of genes, and you might argue that a man able to attract, and support multiple partners is environmentally superior than his single mate competitiors.

The best possible genetic situation is actually, a single woman and multiple male partners (not considering sexually transmitted diseases for a second,) actually has the advantage of greater genetic diversity and environmental superiority.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Thats fine then...

I'd say that I've come to the conclusion that we need to recognise that marriage as a secular or social construct has become more important, in day to day life, than a religious or cultural construct, thus we need to separate the principals from each other.

Thus religious marriages shouldn't automatically confer privileges due to civil unions (which would effect secular privilege or benefit)... There should be a separate civil ceremony or contractual agreement, from any religious ceremony. Different religious institutions should be permitted to have different rules as to whom can marry whom, but none of that should effect civil or social rights.

Falling short of that, allow gays to marry in secular manners.

Why licenses at all? Why civil ceremonies?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know. Is there any non-religious argument against polygamy? I mean, polygamous relationship are sure supposed to be more oppressive and unequal than monogamous ones, but then again, we don't monogamous marriages even though it can be a horrible place of violence and oppression.

You know, I always wondered why my wife insisted that I stop dating other women when I got married. (Clearly, polygamy is strongly anti-woman as men want it and women don't)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I think demanding "exclusive rights" to have my own opinion is fair enough. Why do you want to remove that? Isn't that attitude a little bit facist?

Hmmmm... facist... HUH? You are the one that's trying to cram your opinion down everybody else's throat... you are the one that is saying that ONLY religions should have the authority to perform "marriages"... I'm not saying that you personally need to recogonize something as marriage... but you are saying that only a religion should have the right. Heck, religions can't even agree... so you are really saying that only religions that agree with you should have the right.

I see no reason why the state shouldn't continue what it has done for years... perform marriages. And I see no problem with religions "blessing the marriages" as they have done for years... and if they don't want to recogonize something as official in the eyes of their beliefs... it's their right. But they shouldn't have the right to force their beliefs on others, or deny somebody that basic right.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know. Is there any non-religious argument against polygamy? I mean, polygamous relationship are sure supposed to be more oppressive and unequal than monogamous ones, but then again, we don't monogamous marriages even though it can be a horrible place of violence and oppression.

Yep. A pairing makes far more sense from several legal angles. Two quick examples I made in another thread:

Medical decision to be made. One spouse is unconsious and needs approval from next-of-kin for a procedure. One spouse says yes, another says no. Whose opinion trumps whose? Why?

Divorce. One spouse wants to leave the marriage. If five people are married, is the person leaving entitled to one-fifth of the communal assets? For that matter, do the other four have to agree? You would rarely see cases where all five people got married at once, so how can the last person entering the marriage have the same claim on communal property as the first person?

[Ned]

The real question to me, Ming, is why the state issues "marriage licenses" when we also recognize common law marriages and domestic partners simply by registering.

I don't get it. When does a state deny a license? Why would it deny a license?

[Spiffor]

Ned:
To me, it is obvious modern-day polygamy should be entirely consenting. If a partner opposes the idea of a polygamous relationship, there is no way for this one relationship to turn officially polygamous.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Why licenses at all? Why civil ceremonies?

Since you want some status for civil means... for tax reasons, benefits... etc.

These civil matters are entirely secular... they've got nothing to do with religious institutions.

The most equitable solution is to utterly separate the "marriage" status in a religious sense from an civil status.

Everyone is happy... Gays aren't married (in certain churches, although some may allow it,) straight people have no more civil rights than gay people... they both have to go through a different and specific process... civil ceremony or contract, to gain any civil or social rights, as a pairing.

[Spiffor]

Kontiki: those are actually interesting points

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Yep. A pairing makes far more sense from several legal angles. Two quick examples I made in another thread:

Medical decision to be made. One spouse is unconsious and needs approval from next-of-kin for a procedure. One spouse says yes, another says no. Whose opinion trumps whose? Why?

Divorce. One spouse wants to leave the marriage. If five people are married, is the person leaving entitled to one-fifth of the communal assets? For that matter, do the other four have to agree? You would rarely see cases where all five people got married at once, so how can the last person entering the marriage have the same claim on communal property as the first person?

Kontiki, community property is that property "earned" during a marriage. With multiple partners, the latecomer would only get a share of the communal property created after the date of marriage.

It is not that complicated.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ned:
To me, it is obvious modern-day polygamy should be entirely consenting. If a partner opposes the idea of a polygamous relationship, there is no way for this one relationship to turn officially polygamous.

Good answer.

I already asked my wife. She still opposes me dating other women.