[john5746]

Santorum fail

Yeah, will be interesting if this guy can last past Florida. He actually does a good job working the crowd and making his stupid argument appear valid.

It would be nice if we had a presidential contender who actually was pro gay marriage and would debate this topic.

I would have liked to share my opinion:

1) I think marriage is a core of a great society, providing a solid foundation to create families.
2) Extending this core to same gender couples will increase the number of stable families, improving society.
3) Marriage has evolved through time, it hasn't always been between only two people and was not liberally applied regardless of race and creed.
4) Extending marriage beyond two consenting adults is not being proposed, although in my opinion, I think more than two make divorce even more problematic and therefore should not be considered.

[Phi for All]

john5746, on 6 January 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

It would be nice if we had a presidential contender who actually was pro gay marriage and would debate this topic.

You are SO right.

Quote

I would have liked to share my opinion:

I wish you could have as well.

[doG]

Typical religious conservative...no surprise.

[JustinW]

I've heard a little bit about this debate but not much. It seems as though the only reason to not support gay marriage is because of religion. Is there any other reasons why someone would be apposed to it? The only half way legitimate reason for arguing against it, that I could see, is the fact that a marriage by discription is generally a religious ceremony. For someone's religion that doesn't support it would have a legitimate arguement (though most of their religions preach forgiveness and not judging others). So I can see where that arguement may not hold water as much as they would have people believe. I was just wondering your thoughts on whys and why nots. Personally I haven't really seen a good even reason not support gay marriage. I can't see it affecting anyone negatively.

[JohnB]

JustinW, you aren't thinking far enough ahead. Keeping "marraige" within the purview of the religious is a way of avoiding complications. Note point 4 in the OP, can you come up with a single good reason why "marraige" should not be extended to more than two people?

I think that there is reason to be concerned about a "slippery slope" situation. Unfortunately for the gay community, all the arguments in favour of gay marraige can also be used by others. In essence the argument is "Who are you to define marraige as between a man and a woman?" The religious answer of course is that this is how the Bible defines it.

The fun starts when we take the religious out of marraige. The questions can now become "Who are you to define marraige as between only two people?", "Who are you to define at exactly what age a person is a consenting adult?", "Who are you to say that I can't give my 10 year old daughter away in marraige?", "Who are you say that marraige can only be between entities of the same species?"

If we keep marraige in the perview of the religious then there is "The Book" to fall back on, however if we move it to the civil field then the argument becomes about government and authority interfering in a persons free choice to marry whoever they want. And as I said before, all the arguments along those lines that can be used by the gay community can be used by others as well. You cannot have gay marraige and disallow the others because that would make the "authority" concerned discriminatory, something governments try not to be seen to be. But if you keep the "Church" as the authority, then it's the Church that is being discriminatory and not the government.

To get around it down here we are bringing in "Civil Unions" for the gay community. All the rights of marraige but without the word. The benefit in this approach is that Civil Unions are governed by the "Laws of the Land" as representative of the "will of the people" (usual gov doublespeak) and "The People" will not allow laws that let people have unions with minors or animals or cars. And "The People" decide (and express through their government) what will be considered a reasonable age for a "consenting adult".

Remember that our systems are very different concerning marraige. We don't have the blood tests, licences or waiting periods. If a couple wish to get married, then they book the church and priest for the day of the wedding. After the ceremony, the paperwork gets done and will be filed by the officiating priest/paster/whatever. Once the "Marraige Certificate" is signed and witnessed the couple are married, game over.

[Arete]

JohnB, on 22 January 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

To get around it down here we are bringing in "Civil Unions" for the gay community.

My wife and I emigrated from Australia to the USA.

The USA does not recognize de-facto relationships of any kind for the purposes of dependent visas. If we were a gay couple rather than a straight couple, we would be unable to marry in Australia and thus my partner would have been barred from emigrating with me.

[toastywombel]

Really marriage defined by the government and rights given to people simply because they choose to pair up in a monogamous relationship seems wrong. Giving benefits to certain people because of their lifestyle choices discriminates against individuals. Gay marriage benefits and straight marriage benefits both discriminate against individuals.

Furthermore JohnB said,

Quote

To get around it down here we are bringing in "Civil Unions" for the gay community. All the rights of marraige but without the word.

Ah civil unions are such a silly concept. Much like Colored Bathrooms, All the hardware of a regular White-Only Bathroom, but without the White-only!

So yes let us go with civil unions, then we will have a new tax form, a new division in the IRS, and a new law set to define the same things that have already been defined in marriage except we will call it civil unions. And so many wonder how government wastes so much money.

Like I said marriage or civil unions defined by the government are wrong in my opinion. No one should be given benefits because they are paired up. As far as hospital visitation rights and various other financial institution rights, can't such disputes be handled through the hospital and the patient.

Also, I personally don't like the idea of the government having a list of who is married and who is not, who is gay (in a civil union) and who is not.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm gonna share my opinion too. I stress that it's an opinion rant.

I think gay marriages are ok. A marriage is formal paperwork to say two people belong to each other, and share all kinds of burdens of life. Sex is no argument. Child adoption is no argument. Equal rights is an argument. I'll explain:

Sex is allowed before marriage anyway. When the bride and groom kiss, that's certainly not their first kiss, unless it's an arranged marriage and the couple have never met before. The idea of no-sex-before-marriage in Western society was dropped 2 generations ago, although history long before that is full of bastard sons and daughters, and even the bible has a story about a woman who supposedly had no sex before becoming pregnant (it was a miracle). And Greeks (those guys who invented democracy and science) had gay sex too. So, not being married isn't gonna stop gays having sex. We have more than 2 millenia of history to prove that. And therefore I dismiss sex as an argument in the discussion... which doesn't mean I like to have sex with another guy. I think it's disgusting. But I do enjoy watching certain websites on the interwebs where 2 girls... you get the picture. Not very relevant, I think.

So, what is a marriage? A marriage is a personal deal between two people, that they belong to each other. They share some burdens in life, and the society acknowledges that and lets them marry to make it official. I see it simply as a bit of paperwork. Bureaucracy. And given the amount of divorces and mistakes made in marriages, so do most people people. So, I do not object the gay people having the same paperwork. All people are equal for the law, so why not all couples too.

I read in this thread that gay marriage could be a slippery slope, allowing it to be extended to more than two people. And indeed, I see no reason why it shouldn't. Who cares? For many people, a relation indicates who you live your life with, and who you have sex with. And in both cases, the act of living together, and sharing a bed together with more than two people is ok by many standards. Most people will shrug, and say "not my cuppa tea, but I don't care". Then why do we care when people sign a piece of paper to make it official?

As far as I can see, that leaves the tricky bit. Child adoption. And it is vitally important to note that gay marriage does not equate to automatic child adoption. The adoption centres apparently have their own criteria too. Marriage is only 1 checkbox in a really long list of the adoption centres. Adopting a kid takes years, and several metric tons of paperwork. Because gays will never have kids by themselves (nature prevents that), they will always be the most screened parents in the world. Straight couples can make a baby on a drunk night, but you just don't end up at an adoption centre on a drunk night.

So, I am assuming that adoption centres screen a couple thoroughly, and that they will filter out all imbalanced couples. They will filter out a couple who together produce more testosteron than a platoon of soldiers on a night out. And they will filter out a couple who will encourage any adopted sons to play only with My Little Pony (because My Little Pony is for girls and scientists)... Assuming basically that the adoption centres do their job, they will ensure that a child is brought up in a healthy environment. So, the gay marriage is rather irrelevant. In fact, given the amount of douchbags in this world, I think straight couples should be screened before being allowed to have kids too.

But from what I read in the news, Santorum is more religious than the pope himself, so religion cannot be ignored. But all I have to say about religion is: you can marry before the church in a separate ceremony. The church can make its own rules, and I couldn't care less. So, they can ban gays from marrying before god just like they can excommunicate someone who is in favor of planned parenthood. I can summarize my point on religion in a few words: it should be separate from the state. And with that, it's irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriages.

So, I cannot find a reasonable argument against gay marriage. So, let them marry.

Finally, I want to add a comment about the gays: When I look at a gay couple, I see either two guys or two girls, and I expect that they will have sex... And it's expecially the sex that is a good one to joke about. And that is just different than a straigth couple, no matter which way you turn it. And I will make jokes behind their backs, and possibly in their face. It's all in good humour, although it might hurt them. I think some gays can be really sensitive, but that is not my problem. If you're gonna do it in someone else's behind, I will laugh at that. I respect you as a human being, but I laugh at your hobby.

[JustinW]

JohnB, interesting thoughts. I see how that arguement could be effective.


CaptainPanic,

Quote

So, what is a marriage? A marriage is a personal deal between two people, that they belong to each other.

One thing you left out was the religious aspect of a marriage. When asking what a marriage is, the religious implications cannot be left out, and in a country whose majority is religious it would not be correct to say that a marriage is only paperwork. Most people think of it as a union between a man and a woman in the sight of God. Would they be justified in using that arguement if their religion didn't support such acts? You could look at the argument of the seperation of church and state, but I've also heard that one go both ways also. It could be said that the intention for the seperation of church and state was not to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the state. So thinking that way would these religious beliefs have any bearing on laws. I believe that it already does, but just wanted to get some further feed back.

[doG]

JustinW, on 23 January 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

When asking what a marriage is, the religious implications cannot be left out...

False! Courthouses and Justices Of The Peace perform civil marriage ceremonies all of the time. Further, marriage itself pre-dates recorded history. It existed long before church ceremonies.

[ewmon]

Same-sex marriage? Polygamy?

Several years ago, I listened to a few pro-same-sex marriage people (granted they were not spokespeople of the LGBT community, even though the LGBT community — whoever may comprise it — doesn't elect/authorize spokespeople) vigorously defend same-sex marriage against someone who was pro-polygamy.

These pro-same-sex marriage people strongly insisted, almost ranted, that marriage was strictly between two people, and besides, very few people would engage in polygamy. I don't know if they realized what they said, but they sounded very similar to "straight" people arguing against same-sex marriage — marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, and besides, very few people would engage in same-sex marriages.

Actually, same-sex marriage, by definition, avoids/negates exclusive breeding rights, and so polygamy shouldn't be illegal. Furthermore, for confirmed bachelors and spinsters to avoid the stigma of being "unmarried", "spinsters" etc, someone wanting to be married to him-herself should also be allowed to do so. What's the harm? What about widows and widowers who want to be considered married forever or who want to avoid the widowed/widwered stigma? Certainly their partners didn't want their marriage to end. Anyone should be allowed to be married to him/herself. Chen Wei-Yi did it in Taiwan.

doG, on 23 January 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

marriage ... pre-dates recorded history

How do we know this?

[John Cuthber]

The world economy is going to hell in a hand basket. The sea levels are rising. The CO2 levels are too. There's every chance of yet another war killing thousands but what you choose to worry about is who bonks who, and in what legal framework.

Weird.

Incidentally, if something that resembles marriage didn't predate history we would have died out. Our kids are too much trouble for someone on their own.
You could claim it was some sort of commune, but I would call that a marriage of sorts if it's purpose it to keep the adults together while they raise the kids.

[JustinW]

Quote

False! Courthouses and Justices Of The Peace perform civil marriage ceremonies all of the time. Further, marriage itself pre-dates recorded history. It existed long before church ceremonies.

If marriages were performed before historical records and before we had laws that entitle the couple to rights, then why have the ceromony in the first place if not for religious purposes? If they didn't have paperwork back then, then what would be the justification for performing the ceromony? Is there an actual recorded time, other than our current secular time, that marriage had nothing to do with peoples religious beliefs?

Quote

Incidentally, if something that resembles marriage didn't predate history we would have died out. Our kids are too much trouble for someone on their own.
You could claim it was some sort of commune, but I would call that a marriage of sorts if it's purpose it to keep the adults together while they raise the kids.

I don't think so. The lack of a marriage ceromony doesn't defeat the general bang rule. You know... bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang..... So I don't believe that a marriage ceromony was the one thing that decided our existance.

[iNow]

JustinW, on 23 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Is there an actual recorded time, other than our current secular time, that marriage had nothing to do with peoples religious beliefs?

Almost certainly, yes. Even more interesting, there was quite a very long time when christianity sanctioned gay marriage and performed scores of ceremonies.


http://www.colfaxrec...tail/91429.html

Quote

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

Here's a translated document that shows gay marriages taking place back during the Medieval period and performed by Christian leaders:

http://www.fordham.e...on-adelpho.html



There's also this:

http://www.vexen.co....osexuality.html

Quote

John Boswell (a Yale Historian) also notes that historical gay ceremonies carried out by the church in previous centuries were in the same fashion as heterosexual ones.

Quote

For nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion, Christian emperors in Eastern cities not only tolerated but actually taxed gay prostitution. In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler's legislation against homogenital acts. By the 9th century almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts. By the High Middle Ages, a gay subculture thrived, as in Greco-Roman times. A body of gay literature was standard discussion material at courses in the medieval universities where clerics were educated.

Opposition to homosexuality, as in Augustine and Chrysostom, rested on reasons unacceptable today: "natural-law" arguments based on beliefs about supposed sexual practices among hares, hyenas, and weasels; a philosophical Stoicism that was suspicious of any sexual enjoyment; a sexism that saw a degrading effeminacy in being the receptive partner in sex. All-out Christian opposition to homosexuality arose at a time when medieval society first began to oppress many minority groups: Jews, heretics, the poor, usurers. A campaign to stir up support for the Crusades by vilifying the Muslims with charges of homosexual rape also played a part in Christian Europe's change of attitude toward gay and lesbian sex.

The author lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.

Christianity has always contained a mix of pro- and anti- homosexual elements. Periods of oppression of homosexuals and celebration of love, homosexual or not, have came and went. Finally, same-sex marriage is not only found in early Christianity - it has existed quite freely in other cultures and civilizations. For example a four thousand year old Tomb belonging to gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep exists in Saqqara, Egypt.

If you want to read more on the history of marriage, gay marriage, and the church's role and acceptance of both, be sure to check out these excerpts from the keynote address made by Prof. Boswell to the Fourth Biennial Dignity International Convention in 1979.

http://www.fordham.e...979boswell.html



It sure would be nice if intolerant bigoted theists at least took a moment to understand their own history. It's annoying being an atheist and having to teach them about it so often.

[doG]

ewmon, on 23 January 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

How do we know this?

I said that based on:

Wikipedia said:

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time...

Quoted source:Hobhouse, Leonard Trelawny (1906) Morals in evolution: a study in comparative ethics (Page 180)

[CaptainPanic]

JustinW, on 23 January 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

CaptainPanic,

One thing you left out was the religious aspect of a marriage. When asking what a marriage is, the religious implications cannot be left out, and in a country whose majority is religious it would not be correct to say that a marriage is only paperwork. Most people think of it as a union between a man and a woman in the sight of God. Would they be justified in using that arguement if their religion didn't support such acts? You could look at the argument of the seperation of church and state, but I've also heard that one go both ways also. It could be said that the intention for the seperation of church and state was not to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the state. So thinking that way would these religious beliefs have any bearing on laws. I believe that it already does, but just wanted to get some further feed back.

I did not leave it out. I mentioned religion in my post.

In the Netherlands, you marry before the state in one ceremony at town hall, and before God in another ceremony in a church. It's a different guy doing the ceremony, at a different moment and possibly even a different group of people attending. And many people don't even marry in a church anymore. And as I wrote, we're talking about law (the plans of a presidential candidate). And although Santorum is more religious than the pope, he is not a religious clergyman, and he is not being elected to say anything about religion. He's trying to get into office to influence federal law.

I know that Santorum would like nothing more than turning the USA into a religious country... but even in the US, religion is somewhat separated from the state, isn't it? At least, it still is. Do the Americans employ priests to marry people before the state and god at the same time??? I don't think so. I bet you also have 2 different ceremonies.

So, how relevant is a religion when you discuss the state version of marriage?

John Cuthber, on 23 January 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

The world economy is going to hell in a hand basket. The sea levels are rising. The CO2 levels are too. There's every chance of yet another war killing thousands but what you choose to worry about is who bonks who, and in what legal framework.

Weird.

What, you're surprised that politicians try to focus our attention on irrelevant matters, while passing laws on important matters without much debate?

[JustinW]

Quote

It sure would be nice if intolerant bigoted theists at least took a moment to understand their own history. It's annoying being an atheist and having to teach them about it so often.

Thanks for the history lesson iNow. It shed a little more light on the subject.

CaptainPanic,

Quote

So, how relevant is a religion when you discuss the state version of marriage?

Good point. I must have reacted off of one part of your post while letting the last part slip my mind. My appologies.

It's not very relevant when put that way, but in a country whose majority is religious, I don't think it can be brought to the polls without taking it into account. (as we've seen before in some states) As iNow so delicately pointed out, most religious people do not know their own history. If they did, would it change their way of thinking on the matter though? I would say probably not.

[CaptainPanic]

JustinW, on 24 January 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

CaptainPanic,

Good point. I must have reacted off of one part of your post while letting the last part slip my mind. My appologies.

No worries - it was a long post (a rant) that I wrote. Easy to miss something.

JustinW, on 24 January 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

It's not very relevant when put that way, but in a country whose majority is religious, I don't think it can be brought to the polls without taking it into account.

So, you are effectively saying that the majority of the Americans do not want church and state to be separated? Americans are actually voting religion into their own government, while invading other countries to remove religious regimes?

Weird.

I thought religion in the USA was only important in small communities (the stereotype I guess would be small town Utah). You say it's mainstream USA that considers religion so important?

[edited because I pressed "post" before finishing the last sentence]

This post has been edited by CaptainPanic: 24 January 2012 - 04:14 PM

[JustinW]

Quote

So, you are effectively saying that the majority of the Americans do not want church and state to be separated? Americans are actually voting religion into their own government, while invading other countries to remove religious regimes?

Weird.

I thought religion in the USA was only important in small communities (the stereotype I guess would be small town Utah). You say it's mainstream USA that considers religion so important?

Yes to some degree. If a law is brought to the polls that goes against a person's religious beliefs, do you think that person will vote in favor of it? Or a politition that openly says they will do things against peoples religious beliefs, do you think those people will vote for that politition? Even though people say that religion is seperate from state doesn't mean that religious beliefs do not play a part in the laws that are instituted.
I don't think it is just small town America that is majorilly religious. Just look back a few years ago at California and the voting of the same sex marriage law. Even being a mostly progressive/liberal state, religious ideology still won out over secularism, unless you can point me in a direction that states another cause for that state voting against the bill. I do believe that a majority do want the seperation of church and state, but not in the way that it is stated by a lot of those I have heard (mostly atheists). The reasoning that I have is that the seperation of church and state was meant to protect the church from abuse by the laws of the state. Also to protect one religion from abuse by another should that religion hold a majority in Congress. Government should have a secular stance when it comes to religion. But it is still influenced by those who decide their moral and ethical problems based on their religious beliefs. So religion will always play a role in making laws though it may be indirect.

[John Cuthber]

JustinW, on 23 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

I don't think so. The lack of a marriage ceromony doesn't defeat the general bang rule. You know... bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang..... So I don't believe that a marriage ceromony was the one thing that decided our existance.

Would anyone like to play "spot the straw man" in that reply which talks about a ceremony in response to something that talks about "something that resembles marriage"?

Here's a hint.
I didn't mention a ceremony because it's hard to see how much evidence there could be of a prehistoric ceremony.