Defining Marriage In The Constitution

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:08 pm

Spidey wrote:Civil laws are about “Rights” not Happiness.

I presumed we were treating them as the same, on the basis that you called laws regarding the right to be marries laws regarding happiness.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:15 pm

Ya see…what the problem here is…someone reads your posts and then presumes those things are “what I said”

I apologize for this in advance Tiger….but you have to be the king of misunderstanding posts.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:21 pm

TechPro wrote:
Spidey wrote:Civil laws are about “Rights” not Happiness.
... which leads to greater happiness of the people who benefit from the Civil laws...

Yes, Civil laws are often about "Rights", but the desired results is always for happiness for someone.

Whew…this conversation is becoming a little to Hippy Dippy for me. Happiness may well be the end result of all laws…but they are not the reason…that’s usually something more concrete like “justice”

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:14 pm

Civil Rights aren't about happiness for all, they're an attempt to create some sense of fairness and equality in a society, not everybody will like it. People always want to have something for themselves and yet there is a propensity to deny that same thing to others for various reasons.

I'm noticing that the arguments against gay marriage revolve around religion. Religion bases it's reasoning on the assumption that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice. But what if it's not a choice?

Research is starting to show that sexuality may be separate from gender. They are starting to find that the developing fetal brain may be influenced by hormones bathing it in the womb during gestation, independent of the the genetic makeup. Researchers are seeing indications that if a male fetus is bathed in estrogen, or a female fetus in testosterone, the brain will form under that influence to create a mismatch of gender and sexuality in the fetus. In other words, you can have the genes of a boy, but the brain can be partially programed with female traits, or visa versa. This may explain the wide variation in human sexuality in the world.

My point is, gender and sexuality may turn out to be be separate sliding scales that sometimes don't always line up in a neat little package we agree with. If it turns that homosexuality is not a choice, but instead a throw of the chemical dice, why perpetuate a civil injustice based on the ancient religious argument of choice?

I guess until we have a definitive answer to that question, in fairness, religious marriage should not be granted all the civil perks by the state that goes with it.

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:21 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Civil Rights aren't about happiness for all, they're an attempt to create some sense of fairness and equality in a society, not everybody will like it. People always want to have something for themselves and yet there is a propensity to deny that same thing to others for various reasons.

I'm noticing that the arguments against gay marriage revolve around religion. Religion bases it's reasoning on the assumption that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice. But what if it's not a choice?

Research is starting to show that sexuality may be separate from gender. They are starting to find that the developing fetal brain may be influenced by hormones bathing it in the womb during gestation, independent of the the genetic makeup. Researchers are seeing indications that if a male fetus is bathed in estrogen, or a female fetus in testosterone, the brain will form under that influence to create a mismatch of gender and sexuality in the fetus. In other words, you can have the genes of a boy, but the brain can be partially programed with female traits, or visa versa. This may explain the wide variation in human sexuality in the world.

My point is, gender and sexuality may turn out to be be separate sliding scales that sometimes don't always line up in a neat little package we agree with. If it turns that homosexuality is not a choice, but instead a throw of the chemical dice, why perpetuate a civil injustice based on the ancient religious argument of choice?

I guess until we have a definitive answer to that question, in fairness, religious marriage should not be granted all the civil perks by the state that goes with it.

Well said!

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:24 pm

Jeff250 wrote:The way you've set it out sounds a bit church-o-centric,

That's because I'm looking at it from my point of view and I'm a bit of a church-o-centric kinda guy.

Jeff250 wrote:but I think I'd generally agree. But I'd take this further: Let anyone regain control of marriage. Anyone should be an authority on marriage insofar as they can have people recognize them as one.

That is exactly what I meant. The state enforces a simple "civil union" contract that details property rights and what-not. Anyone else can define marriage however they wish, just so long as it only involves consenting adults. This is, essentially, the system we have now. We just quit pretending that the government's marriage means more than it really does and re-emphasis the vows taken in a church, club, or wherever you choose. (Or no vows at all if that's what you believe in)

Too many people on BOTH sides of the issue think it vitally important that the government back up their point of view. You have liberals trying to make it illegal to say that homosexuality is wrong (They have already nearly succeeded on this point in Canada). And conservatives trying to enforce sodomy laws and afraid that if a gay couple get's married it's somehow going to destroy the value of their own marriage.

In a free country, consenting adults should be able to have sex however they want, just as long as they don't do it in the streets and disturb the horses. AND, any other person has JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to say they are wrong.

It's all about letting people make their own decisions without trying to make the government interfere unless your decision steps on someone else's rights.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Kilarin, your last point made me think a bit. I find the problem with the gov't is they are basing all their idea's on anything from their own beliefs.

Where do you think most of our laws that effect people are from? They are taken from religion(Bible). The ten commandments are basically laws onto themselves.

You shall not kill : Murder is illegal
You shall not covet thy neighbours wife : Adultry is a nono.

etc etc.

So until all politicians are neutral in their beliefs, most of our laws will be based on how those people in power think stuff like this will affect our lives. If they believe that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it's wrong, they will fight tooth and nails to make laws forbidding it.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:06 pm

Spidey wrote:Roid

The analogy doesn’t work for me because of 2 reasons.

1. It seems to trivialize the issue. (Equating caviar to social values doesn’t work)

2. It’s backwards, in my point something that is already illegal becomes legal, and in your analogy something legal becomes illegal. (Analogies need to be parallel not opposite)

Try a little experiment…try changing the word caviar to lets say……poop

Heh, if you want to put banning caviar on the ballot, go right ahead…I’m not scared.

I’m all for giving people every right to be happy, but on the other hand I need to see a net gain from it. Granting a right to a minority for the sake of happiness while it makes the larger group unhappy has no merit. When you go about changing laws for the sake of making people happy…you better be making more people happy then the opposite, or you get a net loss of happiness. I would think raising the total happiness would be the goal of any law dealing with happiness. (did I say happiness enuf to make my point?)

A better argument for gay marriage would be that it would provide a better environment for “everyone” to live in or something like that. Making something legal because it makes a small number of people “happy” makes no sense. That’s a very trivial reason to change a law.

Maybe making Christians unhappy would suit you and some others on this board just fine, because I perceive a very strong anti-Christian sentiment among certain people. The very same kind of bigotry they are always accusing others of.

Anyway I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Foil…thanks for that correction…but someone else already beat you to it.

oh i have good reason for my anti-christian beliefs, they are learned from my experience being on the other side.

the thing is that homosexual marriage will not effect those who are digusted by it at all. So it's none of their concern. Why are they disgusted? People used to be disgusted by interracial marriages - do you think the ban on such marraiges was completely justified, right until it was lifted? Simply because "most people found it disgusting"?

I have no trouble changing my CAVIAR example to POOP - some people do eat poop, the thought of it does disgust me i think it's gross (2girls1cup), but i don't want to outlaw it - obviously these people are enjoying it. I'm concerned other people here might not be able to seperate the negative from POOP. I think CAVIAR is a better example, because when people think about common foods they like or dislike they can better understand how just because something is gross to them personally, doesn't mean something should be banned for others.

I don't see this as an "agree to disagree" thing - it really seems to me you are either trolling, or have some kindof mental condition getting in the way (ie: a mental block, or even stupidity). the Caviar example is an INCREDIBLY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, i find the notion that you find no value in it preposterous. I am frustrated.
...

What do you think about this: Is it worse to keep a wrong law, or to erase a wrong law?
(to gauge if it's actually just CHANGE that you disapprove of)

Perhaps you think that we had it all right a while ago (1950s perhaps) - so any changes from there are automatically changes for the worse. But we used to outlaw things like interracial marriage. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it was RIGHT to keep bans on interracial marriage?
What if most people liked the ban? (I wouldn't be surprised if at one time this was the case)

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:24 pm

What’s wrong with agreeing to disagree? There is no way to agree on this subject…we can’t even come to a consensus on even the smaller issues. So what do you propose we do, argue forever? Don’t get mad at me, just because you couldn’t give me an acceptable reason to allow gay marriage, I was waiting…maybe even hoping someone would.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:45 pm

you've suggested some laughable things, and when corrected - i've seen little confirmation that it got through.

(i have bad memories of you from years back when you were here last. But i've changed a bit so i think i can handle it better now, i see things differently, understand things differently, categorize things differently. And i'm kinda keen to have another, better, go.)

This makes debating with you... frustrating to me. Because not only do we have vastly differing viewpoints - but i have no indication of any progress towards a common ground. I'm not sure if what i'm saying is actually sinking in - or if you'll just repeat the same flawed argument again a few days, weeks, or months later.

So going back: What do you think the purpose of marriage is? Your definition was here on the first page. Given the replies, has this changed?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:16 pm

Here are some quotes from the sites you refused to click on…one from each.

“Civil marriage is the product of society's critical need to manage procreation as the inevitable consequence of intercourse between members of the opposite sex. Procreation has always been at the root of marriage and the reasons for its existence as a social institution. Its structure, one man and one woman committed for life, reflects society's judgment as how optimally to manage procreation and the resultant child rearing. … Attempting to divorce procreation from marriage, transforms the form of the structure into its purpose. In doing so, … history [is turned ]on its head.”

“However, despite what I have just recorded, there is a fascinating disagreement among our Sages (12th-16th centuries) as to whether or not there is in fact a commandment to get married. R. Asheri, (known as the Rosh, 1250-1327), insists that there is no such commandment; the only real command is to have children (\"Be fruitful and multiply,\" Gen 1:28), and the natural - and legal - preparation for procreation is marriage. If one does not wish to - or is biologically incapable of - having children, marriage is not at all necessary.”

“So what is the public interest in marriage? Why is marriage a public, civil institution, rather than a purely private one? The answer, I would argue, is that marriage is a public institution because it brings together men and women for the purpose of reproducing the human race and keeping a mother and father together to cooperate in raising to maturity the children they produce. The public interest in such behavior is great, because thousands of years of human experience and a vast body of contemporary social science research both demonstrate that married husbands and wives, and the children they conceive and raise, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people in any other living situation.”

“Every known human society has some form of marriage. In every
complex society governed by law, marriage exists as a public legal act and
not merely a private romantic declaration or religious rite.2
As Kingsley Davis summed up the anthroplogical evidence: “Although
the details of getting married—who chooses the mates, what are the
ceremonies and exchanges, how old are the parties—vary from group to
group, the principle of marriage is everywhere embodied in practice . . . .”3
As a practically universal human idea, marriage is about regulating the
reproduction of children, families, society. While marriage systems differ,
marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship
obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the
children their sexual union may produce.”

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:22 pm

CDN_Merlin wrote:Where do you think most of our laws that effect people are from? They are taken from religion(Bible). The ten commandments are basically laws onto themselves.

I certainly agree that the basis behind all ethics has to rest on some kind of authority, and that that authority, no matter what you think the authority is, is, by it's very nature, religious.

BUT, I'm going to disagree that the laws of our government are based directly upon the 10 commandments. Or even really upon the Bible.

In your own example, you mentioned adultery. But adultery is NOT illegal in the USA. It's grounds for divorce, but that's simply a matter of violating the terms of a contract.

The first four of the ten commandments are strictly about Man's relationship to God.

1:Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2:Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3:Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
4:Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God

Our government does not, and CAN NOT enforce them. And thank GOD for that. The examples we have where the civil authority's HAVE attempted to enforce any of these rules are nightmarish.

The next 6 laws deal with mans relationship with man:

5:Honor thy father and thy mother
6:Thou shalt not kill
7:Thou shalt not commit adultery
8:Thou shalt not steal
9:Thou shalt not bear false witness
10:Thou shalt not covet

Of these, the ONLY ones that the government attempts to enforce are: Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, and Thou shalt not bear false witness. That's three laws out of 10, not a very good ratio if our system of law and order were based upon the 10 commandments.

Our system of law is really based upon the very simplest, most basic level of ethics. The Tao that is intuitively obvious to almost all humans. It is simply that you should not harm anyone else, except to stop them from harming someone else. When you add the assumption that violating someone's property rights is harm, and that breaking agreements is harm, that pretty much covers it.

At this level, the "ethics" involved are axioms. You can't really argue for them, you either agree with them, or you don't. And if you don't, we label you as a criminal or psychopath because there isn't much else we can do.

Throughout history the vast majority of governments have been tangles up with religion and have attempted to enforce religious laws. The results were always BAD.

In America, we tried an interesting experiment. We attempted to keep the government and religion separate from each other. Separate. Not hostile or against each other, just separate. We've had varying degree's of success at accomplishing this. BUT, if you want to know if it was worth doing, just look at the examples of governments that want the Church and state tangled. The Islamic Fundamentalists are a pretty good example. We weren't that different from them a few hundred years ago, and the results were pretty much just as horrible.

Combining Church and State is bad for BOTH. The BEST way to defend religion is to keep the government as far away from it as possible. And the BEST way to keep your government free is to keep it from being tangled up with religion.

And that is why I will fight for the rights of homosexuals. MY right to say that homosexuality is wrong is intimately tied to the rights of homosexuals to act as they wish. Otherwise, when the tide of public opinion turns in some other way, I may find something *I* believe on the political chopping block. As was discovered by the preacher in Canada who was punished for reading Bible texts from the pulpit that condemned homosexuality. I defend their rights to do something I disagree with in the hopes that someday they will defend MY right to do something THEY disagree with. When that is the principle the government operates on, we will ALL be safe.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:03 pm

Spidey.
Well yeah. Those quotes make no sense when you add in that infertile people get married too - thus the flaws in their logic are apparent.
What i'm saying sounds familure right? This is the same point i responded to you with at the beginning.

I understand the point a bit further now, and can refute it further: If the purpose of marraige is to raise children - then marriages between infertile people are a sham. Laws of fornication and adultery should not apply to infertile people. Neigh - they might not even apply to anyone TEMPORARILY rendered infertile. IE: if there is no chance of conception (i'll leave the abortion debate for another time) then there is no \"Marriage\" - if procreation is the point of Marriage. So when that central concept - procreation - is taken outof marriage, then i guess no marriage exists and it's open season?

Marriage is therefore NOT solely about procreation. To say that marriage is only about procreation is to suggest that infertile people cannot get married, and while a temporary contraceptive is in use any marriage between otherwise fertile people is temporarily enulled.

Do you see? *sigh* i wonder.
This is the same point we were saying at the beginning.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:14 pm

Fine you win.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:29 pm

Any argument that disputes the purpose of marriage as if there is only one is going to fail. There's truth to marriage being about procreation. But that doesn't exclude marriage being about other things too. The only sane position is that marriage has many purposes. Gay marriage does not help so much with the procreation one. But it fulfills the others.

Spidey, you've demonstrated that there is overlap between the purposes of marriage and procreation. But can you argue that marriage does not have any other purposes than procreation?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:45 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Any argument that disputes the purpose of marriage as if there is only one is going to fail. There's truth to marriage being about procreation. But that doesn't exclude marriage being about other things too. The only sane position is that marriage has many purposes. Gay marriage does not help so much with the procreation one. But it fulfills the others.

Spidey, you've demonstrated that there is overlap between the purposes of marriage and procreation. But can you argue that marriage does not have any other purposes than procreation?

No I can’t

I have already conceded this argument, Marriage can be about sharing a lifetime with someone you love, or any other purpose you want.

That’s great now I can marry my sister like I always wanted to. (Don’t worry we don’t intend to have children)

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:18 am

Spidey wrote:I have already conceded this argument, Marriage can be about sharing a lifetime with someone you love, or any other purpose you want.

I am glad to hear that you have conceded, but you are now making the mistake of believing a misrepresentation of your opponents' position. Nobody has argued that the state should grant civil unions to anyone for any purpose. Nobody has argued that we should recognize anyone's claim to having a marriage.

Spidey wrote:That’s great now I can marry my sister like I always wanted to. (Don’t worry we don’t intend to have children)

There are enough relevant disanalogies. One of the universal purposes to marriage is to legally, or otherwise, affirm your romantic commitment to another person. While there is no social harm in a gay romantic relationship, except arguably hurting God's feelings, there can be with romantic commitments between siblings. I don't believe that commitments between siblings are the types that our state should be recognizing or that we, as thoughtful people, should be encouraging. Aside from that, a person who wants to marry his or her sibling can always have a successful romantic relationship with somebody else. These are reasons that come to mind that make me comfortable with my position. In any case, you will need argumentation in addition to that already presented in this thread to convince us that you should be able to marry your sister.

Besides, I'm going to assume you're male and say that not recognizing gay marriage won't entail that we shouldn't let you marry your sister. I guess this is also where your argument comes into play that we shouldn't allow people to marry if it makes some people feel icky on the inside about it. But we should have better reasons for forming our beliefs than this anyways.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:50 am

Kilarin, I think you did a laudable job of defeating the 10 commandments argument.

Get that school of thought together with the one that claims a \"separation of church and state\" (which quote doesn't exist in our governmental documents) means the absence of any and all religious values from government, and we'd have a special interest group pushing for the legalization of murder, theft, and deceit.

However I would argue that it is erroneous to view homosexuality as a matter of liberty. It ought to be right up there with don't murder, don't steal, and don't commit perjury: don't associate with someone of the same sex in the way one would the opposite sex, it's deranged. A lot of people are brain-washed to the point where they don't understand that.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:29 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Get that school of thought together with the one that claims a "separation of church and state" (which quote doesn't exist in our governmental documents)

Correct, it doesn't. But lets look at what the AUTHORS of the constitution thought that the first amendment meant?

"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom."
-James Madison, Journal excerpt, June 12, 1788.

"Among the features peculiar to the Political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious Sect. And it is particularly pleasing to observe in the good citizenship of such as have been most distrusted and oppressed elsewhere, a happy illustration of the safety and success of this experiment of a just and benignant policy. Equal law protecting equal rights, are found as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among Citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony and most favorable to the advancement of truth."
-James Madison, Letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820.

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the US forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation."
-James Madison, "Detached Memoranda."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802.

"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Dr. Price.

"[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen; and... that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produced an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli, 1797, Article XI negotiated under George Washington and ratified by the Senate under John Adams:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:However I would argue that it is erroneous to view homosexuality as a matter of liberty. It ought to be right up there with don't murder, don't steal, and don't commit perjury: don't associate with someone of the same sex in the way one would the opposite sex, it's deranged. A lot of people are brain-washed to the point where they don't understand that

Do you realize that some people think oral sex between a married heterosexual couple is deranged? The Shakers thought that ALL sex was deranged. (They died out, by the way). MANY Americans think that being a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness is deranged? A lot of them would like to outlaw it. In the past ages they HAVE tried to.

The problem is that as soon as you start trying to enforce laws against behavior that you think is "deranged", but falls outside of the sphere of harming anyone else, you run into the problem that as soon as the majority changes their opinion on what is deranged, you might find yourself outlawed. Again, notice that in Canada, under the "hate-crime" bill C-250, a preacher standing in the pulpit and saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality is guilty of a crime. Sweden and some other countries have enacted similar laws. The USA has come close.

If our legal system allows us to punish homosexuality as a crime because we think it is deranged, then in the not so distant future when the majority has slipped from conservative to liberal, the legal system will allow THEM to punish conservatives for speaking out against homosexual behavior. Some of the wilder edge liberals would like to have all sex within heterosexual marriages declared rape. What if they ended up in the majority?

WE PROTECT OURSELVES BY PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH US.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:33 am

Jeff…

What part of “conceded” don’t you understand? There is no more “my argument”.

Since you have chosen to dispute sibling marriage it is now incumbent on you to make an argument against it that can’t be applied to gay marriage, and also to prove you are not a bigot.

So far you have not done this.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:13 pm

Spidey wrote:Since you have chosen to dispute sibling marriage it is now incumbent on you to make an argument against it that can’t be applied to gay marriage, and also to prove you are not a bigot.

Easy answer: sibling marriage encourages inbreeding. Which is a bad thing due to genetic diversity. Gay marriage doesn't encourage an equivilent to inbreeding.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:32 pm

Good Point, are you saying marriage has something to do with breeding?

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:45 pm

Spidey wrote:Good Point, are you saying marriage has something to do with breeding?

Yes: legalising certain people to be married encourages said people to be in a relationship, which strongly enocurages breeding if possible.

d3jake · Post by **d3jake** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:56 pm

But is not a requirement.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:08 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...don't associate with someone of the same sex in the way one would the opposite sex, it's deranged. A lot of people are brain-washed to the point where they don't understand that.

Homosexuals are not deranged in any way and I, for one, don't consider myself brainwashed for believing that. One of my favorite singer/songwriters that I have always loved is Elton John. He has a legal civil union with his partner, lives a good life, doesn't have children, and was knighted by the Queen of England for his service to his country.

Why should he be denied happiness because of a mistake your God made.

Bee

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:15 pm

d3jake wrote:But is not a requirement.

Well, no. But there laws preventing certain people from having sex (case in point: underage people) are very rarely maintained.

Bet51987 wrote:a mistake your God made.

NOT a good thing to say in an argument, Bee!

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:32 pm

Good quotes, Kilarin, thanks.

Kilarin wrote:Do you realize that some people think oral sex between a married heterosexual couple is deranged?

I wouldn't necessarily argue against that.

Kilarin wrote:The Shakers thought that ALL sex was deranged. (They died out, by the way).

That's what comes of being overly "pious", to the point of denying one's own humanity.

Kilarin wrote:The problem is that as soon as you start trying to enforce laws against behavior that you think is "deranged", but falls outside of the sphere of harming anyone else, you run into the problem that as soon as the majority changes their opinion on what is deranged, you might find yourself outlawed.

See, that is the very problem. Homosexuality might be said to fall outside of that sphere, if they just kept it to themselves (except for the fact that homosexual circles have spawned at least two diseases that I've heard of: GRIDS (now called AIDS, because it was later found elsewhere also), and another that I heard of more recently). But they would have it presented in schools, to children, as an acceptable life-style. There's where the harm comes in. Homosexuals are not out to be left alone, they're out make their behavior accepted, and to promote it. If it weren't for that, it would be no more than a moral issue.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:35 pm

Spidey wrote:Since you have chosen to dispute sibling marriage it is now incumbent on you to make an argument against it that can’t be applied to gay marriage, and also to prove you are not a bigot.

So far you have not done this.

Read my post. But even if you aren't convinced by my points, I don't see your argument here (even though you don't acknowledge having an argument) ever working. If gay sex caused a kitten somewhere to die, then I would argue against the state recognizing relationship commitments between people who would be killing kittens. This does not mean that marriage is about kittens. (This is nothing against kittens.) For the same reason, we can approve of the state not recognizing relationship commitments between siblings without thinking that marriage is about reproduction.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:07 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But they would have it presented in schools, to children, as an acceptable life-style. There's where the harm comes in.

...Do you actually know what the word 'harm' means?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:(except for the fact that homosexual circles have spawned at least two diseases that I've heard of: GRIDS (now called AIDS, because it was later found elsewhere also),

...
...
...
What?
No really: what? Please tell me that you're just trying to be controversial on purpose and don't actually believe AIDS was caused by gay sex.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:22 pm

Spidey wrote:Granting a right to a minority for the sake of happiness while it makes the larger group unhappy has no merit.

Funny, that's what white folks used to say about black folks.

You might as well go marry your sister since it's becoming apparent that your mindset is shared with those kinds of people. Saying such a thing is only intended to make those who aren't afraid of gay marriage go 'OMG marrying your sister is EVIL! If we let gays marry then everyone's going to marry their sister too!', and suddenly we're going to see things your way! Guess what, we don't care. We aren't irrationally overemotional. Have kids if you want. Is it our business? No.

Thorne, Gays aren't trying to promote their gayness like a product, they're trying to be taken seriously. People being people, they blow things out of proportion. The only thing they want is to have the same freedom of being gay as blacks have being black.
It's the 60's all over again.

If the government is going to get it's dumb ass into marriage, like it should NOT do, then government has to cater to all forms to encompass all the religions, and no religion. So what Christians think is irrelevant.

I agree with all the Christians that gay marriage should not be recognized by the church. Christianity has never given these people any benefit, and there's no need for that to change, unless Christianity wants to change. If you're gay and want a Christian church sanctioned marriage, tough ★■◆●. Call the pope.

If you want to regain control of marriage, help us all and get government out of it.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:29 pm

Minorities were granted their rights for Justice…not happiness.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:36 pm

Spidey wrote:Minorities were granted their rights for Justice…not happiness.

Where the heck do you keep getting this stuff from? It was done for both, in the same way allowing gay marriage would be too.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:49 pm

And wtf is everyone’s obsession with “happiness” The blacks were denied their civil rights because people believed they were inferior and didn’t deserve to have the same rights as whites! They were granted their rights to provide justice and equality not happiness!

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:23 pm

Testiculese wrote:If you want to regain control of marriage, help us all and get government out of it.

Exactly. That's the point Kilarin and I and others are trying to make here. (Interesting, I completely agree with Testiculese on a point in this thread!)

Churches can and should be able to define marriage per their belief system. Arguing that a Christian group (or any group for that matter) should accept something that goes directly against their beliefs is just ridiculous.

However, for the government to get involved goes completely against what the founders of our country designed in the Constitution. The quotes Kilarin posted on the last page make this very clear.

It really bothers me that I've heard so many Christians lately who argue that the government should "become Christian". As shown throughout the history of governments and rulers who tried to enforce religious rules, we can see that that's a bad, bad idea.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:59 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Homosexuality might be said to fall outside of that sphere, if they just kept it to themselves (except for the fact that homosexual circles have spawned at least two diseases that I've heard of: GRIDS (now called AIDS, because it was later found elsewhere also), and another that I heard of more recently). But they would have it presented in schools, to children, as an acceptable life-style. There's where the harm comes in. Homosexuals are not out to be left alone, they're out make their behavior accepted, and to promote it. If it weren't for that, it would be no more than a moral issue.

Again, realize that identical arguments can be made against something YOU believe in and promote. To use the MOST obvious, in sheer numbers (not necessarily percentages) the amount of disease spread by heterosexual sex dwarfs any disease spread through homosexual contact. In particular, note that in Africa, (where AIDS originated), AIDS is primarily spread through heterosexual contact. Add in a host of other deadly venereal diseases, and you can make a very solid argument that heterosexuals are a hazard to society. With modern technology we could eliminate sexual contact entirely and reproduce through artificial insemination and greatly reduce the spread of disease. But those darn heterosexuals keep promoting their lifestyle!!!!

On a more realistic basis, Dawkins argues that teaching Christianity to children is child abuse. There are many who agree with him. They think that Christianity causes harm, and we are deliberately attempting to spread it, to CHILDREN!!!!!

What it boils down to is this. I AGREE with you that the homosexual lifestyle can be harmful. But if you have the government legislate to enforce that opinion, very soon they will be legislating against you yourself.

Why are people afraid of the marketplace of ideas? Allowing the homosexuals the right to promote their lifestyle ensures that *I* have the right to argue the other side of the issue. If people won't believe my arguments then either I'm wrong, or they are idiots, and in either case, legislation won't really change anything. They are going to do what they want.

Just look at the history of England! They flip-flopped back and forth between Catholic and Anglican for years, and each time they flipped, the new group in power went through and tortured and killed everyone from the other side. (All in the lovely name of Jesus, of course) <sigh>

Would England have been better or worse off if they had simply said much earlier that everyone can decide for themselves if they want to be Catholic, Anglican, or whatever? It will be settled in the marketplace of ideas and the government will stay out of it!

We have MANY examples of governments that legislate against any kind of behavior that they do not approve of. Have a talk with anyone who lived through Soviet era Russia about what it was like to be a Christian in a country that considered religion to be deranged (and a drug).

And for the best current example, would you enjoy living in Iran? In Iran they take homosexuals outside and hang them in the public square. Look it up, I'm not kidding, you can find pictures online. Now some of you are probably thinking to yourselves, "well good for them!" But look again. Check how they treat anyone who converts from Moslem to Christian. The results of such conversions are quick, violent, and deadly. And legal, entirely legal. Mandated by law actually. And based on exactly the same arguments used to hang homosexuals. Converting from Moslem to Christian is deranged behavior. An insult to God. And all rational people should be happy to see it punished.

The conclusion should be obvious, at least it seems obvious to me. Christians, or ANY religious group for that matter, are best off when they live under a government that does NOT attempt to enforce their religious beliefs. Most specifically, they are in GRAVE danger from any government that feels it should punish people for "deranged" or "deviant" behavior. Because sooner or later the tide turns and you find yourself on the wrong side of the deviant line.

Foil wrote:(Interesting, I completely agree with Testiculese on a point in this thread!)

Heh. Yep. Strange bedfellows, but definitely on the same side.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:28 pm

Spidey wrote:The blacks were denied their civil rights because people believed they were inferior and didn’t deserve to have the same rights as whites! They were granted their rights to provide justice and equality not happiness!

Then why don't you see allowing homosexual people to marry in equal way as hetrosexual people not just and equal?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:46 pm

Dude, you already won that argument...

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:02 pm

If you believe that homosexuality is a choice you really need to meet more gay people and let them tell you about their life; how they grew up and when they found out they were gay. The vast majority would be very happy to have grown up straight and most at some time in their life have tried to live as if they were not gay. Usually it didn't work.
If you eliminate the \"choice\" aspect of being gay then you should see the reasons to be accepting of the differences in individuals and see the rational of preventing harm to those that do no harm to others. So gays get the \"right\" to live without being harmed simply for being gay.

I doubt the preacher in the pulpit who read bible passages that condemn homosexuality would violate any Canadian law if he espoused Jesus' teachings of acceptance and forgiveness as well. You can legally say you think it is wrong but you cannot encourage hatred and persecution of those you perceive to be wrong. You can read a lot of laws in ways that they were never intended to be used or enforced particularly those written by a committee of bureaucrats.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:47 pm

[blank, I had an idea then completely lost it]

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:08 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:If you eliminate the "choice" aspect of being gay then you should see the reasons to be accepting of the differences in individuals and see the rational of preventing harm to those that do no harm to others.

Just to clarify a point here. Whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" really has no bearing to a Christian on the question of whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin.

Heterosexual orientation is not a choice, and yet many conservative Christians believe that acting upon those heterosexual impulses to have sexual relations while unmarried is a sin. Alcoholism may have a genetic basis, it doesn't change the fact that Christians view it as a sin. Men with a double Y chromosome have a genetic bias towards violent behavior. Christians still believe such behavior is a sin.

Christians believe that we are ALL born with a pre-disposition to sin, and that doesn't make sin ok. It just explains why we need a Savior.

An excellent (and surprising) article on this topic from a Christian perspective can be found <here:Is Your Baby Gay?>. It is really worth the read.

Ford Prefect wrote:I doubt the preacher in the pulpit who read bible passages that condemn homosexuality would violate any Canadian law if he espoused Jesus' teachings of acceptance and forgiveness as well. You can legally say you think it is wrong but you cannot encourage hatred and persecution of those you perceive to be wrong.

I'm not certain I trust Canada to interpret the law that way, but then, I'm hardly an expert on Canadian law.

Still, your point about Jesus teaching forgiveness and acceptance is spot on.

The Church is a place for sinners. EVERYONE THERE is a sinner. None worse than any other. A Christian church that is truly operating in the Spirit of Christ should be actively out searching for homosexuals and inviting them to come and fellowship with them. Christ said "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick" And Christian Doctrine declares that we are all deathly ill with sin, and in desperate need of the same cure. Christ.

Defining Marriage In The Constitution

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: