Tolerance issues!

[Azlan]

I knew I'd find a supporter in the face of Lysander 

Is that like the Face of Boe?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.

Bugger. Mods, he's not going to tolerate us at _all_... ;-]

You think anyone does? Oh, sure, we have to obey, but in the end we all think of you as touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies. And if the fact that that people are going to think that of you isn't in the job description...

Oh, well. That's all right then.

I thought it was something different... ;-] If it's just touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies, I knew that all already...

[Gamma]

I am indeed tolerant as it is my nature. Behind closed doors and out of site I myself do think things that are wrong sometimes. Though I believe almost anyone has this same fault in character.
Though I do strive to be as objective as possible in most things I do.

My biggest point is that I do not believe in Gay Marriage.

I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone. You still have to fill out the paperwork after you've gone to the church.
The system is fundamentally flawed by not having something separate in place. A "Civil Union" would be a good way to put it. This would be a consentaneous act between adults, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, or religion, to share in all aspects of their finances, taxes, debt, profits, and stocks, just as current marriages do. There would be no requirement to take someone else's name either, this is a practice put in place by religion, as is the ceremony and requirements to be married. This would also open the door for multiple partners in one union. I see no moral reason not to allow it, only a legal one, can you imagine the paperwork some families would have getting the Union broken?
This would also not necessarily make anything more complicated, just better documented.

My secondary reason for it is that Marriage is not just seen as a religious ceremony. If Unions were put in place, you could still get married but with out the Union you would legally still be separate. People have lumped the idea that the only significant way of being with another person is to be Married and it can't be called anything else. So peoples perception is the underlying cause.

I understand that homosexuals want Marriage, it is significant. However, Marriage is dictated by your religion and their requirements. If you go against the requirements then I'm sorry, you can't be married.
Again though, this restriction should not be at a governing level. At the same time though, government cannot say what is a requirement of marriage. This is the reason we need a separate agreement that encompasses everybody equally.

(This statement brought to you by an unmarried Atheist with no absolute knowledge of the inner workings of common religions and no perfect knowledge of how one is legally bound to another.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I my self do have problems with others that immediately look and act different.
This is a flaw I have been attempting to correct, with limited success.
The cause of the problem and the hindering force in correcting said problem are one in the same.
I am not socially adept and literally fear new and grand interaction. This is simply my own fault.

Having limited proper examples of people in entertainment mediums is not helping anything either. Neither is that everyone I interact with in this area seem to reinforce their stereotype. Half the people in a store are wearing A-shirts(wife-beater) and buying lots of beer, anyone in a pawnshop is a crack head, work crews are predominantly Mexican in decent, and the "bad side of town" has a much darker complexion.
This area is not the best at keeping prejudices out. I have been looking for better examples of how people act but the rest stand out so well that my limited interaction lets me see little.

I told you that just for a different perspective on the matter, not a justification. Prejudice is never truly justifiable in this day and age.

[Zina]

My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.

Bugger. Mods, he's not going to tolerate us at _all_... ;-]

You think anyone does? Oh, sure, we have to obey, but in the end we all think of you as touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies. And if the fact that that people are going to think that of you isn't in the job description...

Oh, well. That's all right then.

I thought it was something different... ;-] If it's just touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies, I knew that all already...

I didn't think we were all that touchy and vindictive, but I guess that's just because I am misguided.

[Kipiru]

Gamma makes a great point at homosexual marriages and I can totally relate to his thoughts on it! It just seems that humanity has not yet risen to the point where it can drop centuries of prejudice and tradition. A lot of people (especially illiterate ones) still fear all that doesn't fit in to the established model of the world. In fact prejudice is found in all of us and anyone that says they are without are just being hypocritical. The point is to try and get around such feelings, not deny them! That is why I shared what I think are my flaws, cause I wish to one day get rid of them!

[TheDXM]

I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone. You still have to fill out the paperwork after you've gone to the church.

I've had this discussion 129347109470 times since Prop 8 went into effect.

The simple fact is that by the same logic, if I wanted to create a religious organization that specifically upheld gay marriage as a 'standard' or 'traditional' method of marriage, one could very easily make this same argument to the opposing. Would the government recognize that then? Well, that all depends on the maturity of one's nation.

[Zina]

I have to point out that homosexuality has been apart of humanity since the very beginning, and not only was in common in some of the great civilization in the past, it was accepted. Gay marriage was practiced in ancient Rome, Greece, China and Japan. It wasn't until after Christianity  came into "power" that homosexuality was viewed as "bad'.

So really, the whole concept of gay marriage isn't a new thing by any means, and if it was able to flourish in those societies, then it won't be the end of times if it is legal again in modern times.

If people are able to honor civil unions the same way the honor marriage, in times of legality, then it shouldn't be a problem. But they don't, and thus it becomes the issue it is now.

[Tapewolf]

Gay marriage was practiced in ancient Rome, Greece, China and Japan. It wasn't until after Christianity  came into "power" that homosexuality was viewed as "bad'.

I never knew that.  On the flipside, it must be said that most of those civilisation have since collapsed or become a shadow of their former selves.  Not that I blame gay marriage for it, of course, though others might

[Sunblink]

I am indeed tolerant as it is my nature. Behind closed doors and out of site I myself do think things that are wrong sometimes. Though I believe almost anyone has this same fault in character.
Though I do strive to be as objective as possible in most things I do.

My biggest point is that I do not believe in Gay Marriage.

I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone. You still have to fill out the paperwork after you've gone to the church.
The system is fundamentally flawed by not having something separate in place. A "Civil Union" would be a good way to put it. This would be a consentaneous act between adults, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, or religion, to share in all aspects of their finances, taxes, debt, profits, and stocks, just as current marriages do. There would be no requirement to take someone else's name either, this is a practice put in place by religion, as is the ceremony and requirements to be married. This would also open the door for multiple partners in one union. I see no moral reason not to allow it, only a legal one, can you imagine the paperwork some families would have getting the Union broken?
This would also not necessarily make anything more complicated, just better documented.

My secondary reason for it is that Marriage is not just seen as a religious ceremony. If Unions were put in place, you could still get married but with out the Union you would legally still be separate. People have lumped the idea that the only significant way of being with another person is to be Married and it can't be called anything else. So peoples perception is the underlying cause.

I understand that homosexuals want Marriage, it is significant. However, Marriage is dictated by your religion and their requirements. If you go against the requirements then I'm sorry, you can't be married.
Again though, this restriction should not be at a governing level. At the same time though, government cannot say what is a requirement of marriage. This is the reason we need a separate agreement that encompasses everybody equally.

(This statement brought to you by an unmarried Atheist with no absolute knowledge of the inner workings of common religions and no perfect knowledge of how one is legally bound to another.)

It isn't so much that marriage is the only way to be significant, it's just that if you're married you get recognition and benefits. There was a whole debate about that over in Florida, just before the election results were announced. (The "Marriage Protection Act") My only issue with civil unions is that I don't see why another ceremony is entirely necessary - I don't think there should be any need to create some diluted version to appease people. (Granted, if it's marriage in all but name, I can't argue too much, like what Zina said.)

Part of my reasoning is that I think that completely barring one group from participating in something comes across as discrimination to me, similar to the whole argument about gays being in the army that I mentioned earlier. I also, for most of my life, have never viewed marriage in a religious way - not necessarily in something that was traditionally bulletproofed or a subject of debate. It's because I viewed marriage, in its most idyllic depiction, as a union of love. I can't fathom why people think the love of, for example, a happy gay couple is worth less than another, theoretically miserable man and woman.

Even I, with my strangely cynical viewpoints, still hold marriage in a high regard.

However, most of my argument is one person's definition of marriage against another, which isn't terribly effective. I'm not too certain about the legalese with marriage myself, other than the benefits and recognition. In terms of marriage being a religious union, that seems a little hard considering the diversity involved with religion.

Actually, as I'm writing this, I just remembered that there was an interesting website I dug up a long time ago for some research: This has some pretty good arguments.

Holy shit. The most rational and intelligent debates I've had were with furries.

I never knew that.  On the flipside, it must be said that most of those civilisation have since collapsed or become a shadow of their former selves.  Not that I blame gay marriage for it, of course, though others might

I vouch for what Zina said. The Greeks and Romans and whatnot. (There was a bit of controversy about Alexander the Great's homosexuality in that crappy Oliver Stone movie, actually.) I wasn't familiar with Japan and China, though. I learned something new today!

[Reese Tora]

I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone. You still have to fill out the paperwork after you've gone to the church.

In which case, it should not be the government's choice to give benefits or not; some religious institutions are willing to marry gays, and since it's an entierly religeous issue, the government should not be allowed to allow or deny a marriage license on that basis.  If it's an act of governemnt, the government has no basis to deny rights, and if it's an act of church, the government has no buisness denying the churches the right to practice their own beliefs.  Marriage has a long history of being a secular institution, little more than a buisness transaction, and the sanctity of marriage is a concept that's less than a decade old and refers only to marriage in a tiny window of time just after discriminatory laws against marriage between different races were struck down.

[superluser]

I have to point out that homosexuality has been apart of humanity since the very beginning, and not only was in common in some of the great civilization in the past, it was accepted. Gay marriage was practiced in ancient Rome, Greece, China and Japan. It wasn't until after Christianity  came into "power" that homosexuality was viewed as "bad'.

I would point out that, while much of popular culture portrays Rome and Greece as one giant bisexual orgy, the truth is a little more mundane.  Homosexuality in ancient Rome tended to be situational homosexuality among the soldiers who were away from their wives, although there's no doubt that there were honestly gay people there.  The weird bacchanals of the Emperors notwithstanding (and which really bore no relation to the common people).

As to gay marriage in Rome, this paper makes a decent argument that Roman same-sex weddings were for property, did not result in marriage and had nothing to do with sexual preference.

Which, all in all, sounds an awful lot like same-sex marriage.

I have much less knowledge about ancient Greece, but I do know that they held women in lower regard than Romans, and that sex for fun was to be had with men, not women.

Oh, and government should have nothing to do with a religious institution like marriage.  Any two people of the age of majority should be able to enter a civil union, provided they're not already in civil unions with other people.

[Gamma]

First of all I should clarify my previous opening statement,

My biggest point is that I do not believe in Gay Marriage.

I'm surprised I didn't catch the possible misinterpretation. I would like Gay people to enjoy the same aspects of life available to anyone else not being prejudged. But truthfully that can't be because we cannot force religions to allow such a thing. If the pope says there is to be no Gay marriage then any pure and abiding Christian church will not hold such a ceremony.

Keaton, one of the biggest things I see with your rebuttal is that it seems you think a Civil Union would replace marriage. No, that is for your religion to grant. The government takes care of the benefits, that is what must be changed. To grant a civil union would be little different then a marriage license and the latter would no longer exist, only a Civil union would be available across the board, for everybody.
(If i misinterpreted you I apologize.)

For lack of sighting better terms/more terms I chose to call all religion based unions marriage.
Honestly though as Reese touched on the government really shouldn't have a say in who should be married, and therefore government should have nothing to do with religious practice at all, exceptions are obvious, torture, persecution, etc.
But herein lies that problem, it is, and it always will be. This country would be nothing like it is now without a christian based religion at the helm. (Note I know that the early settlers and colonies were of multiple religions but they were mostly christian in origin, all sharing basic ideals such as the 10 commandments.) And as such this country has had a majority religion steering it morally in the background. This is also why marriage law even exists. Most likely this is also why so many financial benefits are available to those married. If you were a married senator, wouldn't you like a tax break?

Marriage law also exists because it used to make sense. Religion was closer to government because religious diversity was almost nonexistent back then. In 1800 tell everyone you didn't believe in god, you'd be lucky to make it out of town. Now marriage law does not make sense and should be replaced with Civil Union law. Using civil unions allow a typical ceremony, prestige, and benefit. Some folks would just wonder why they renamed a marriage license.
The others who actually paid attention would be rallying in the streets demanding marriage back if the legal side was changed to a civil union. Yet the actual act of marriage would have never left since it is still strictly controlled by your religion.

I really understand that marriage is a lasting symbol of one's love and that bag of emotions I have yet to understand. But from an objective, legal, and logical perspective, it doesn't matter. If the civil union would grant the same benefits to two heterosexual partners of the same religion and to a pair of homosexual partners with differing/no religion then all is good. That just leaves you to reinterpret marriage if you so choose.
As stated I don't grasp complex emotions properly so I'm coming off callous, but if people really care for each other properly then what the hell difference does it make if you call it a marriage license or a civil union?!
[EDIT: I have properly ready some of the article Keaton had posted. Since there is at least one common religion already allowing for same sex marriage only the legal portion is truly left to be changed. This however is not likely because of the ingrained nature of current practices./EDIT]
Besides, I left open the ability for a church either a breakaway from a major religion or a brand new one to start offering actual religious Marriage to their differing followers. The DXM made such a point as well. Combined with the Civil Unions it would be defined exactly the same, public opinion would be different.

For recognition, well that's another tough break. Currently it seems recognition for gay marriage involves breaking religion over it's collective knee. In other words forcing a religion that does not allow it to marry gay people. That won't happen. Until a religion allows for it and the legal system is ready, a gay marriage has no hope of being given the same respect and recognition by the people. Even then you will not find many willing to openly congratulate a gay couple.
Such a thing flies in the face of many peoples moral standards that were set for them by others. While we all wish the world would change only you can really make it change.

One more thing, religion has the option to discriminate. It is in their practices, I wrote a paper in high school on atheist prejudice. Part of it centered around the Boy Scouts of America. They do not allow people of certain faiths and sexualities and they have that right according to the law. It is not a job and is not infringing on your rights, you simply can't join their little club. While other organizations allow you to join and do essentially the same things just without the requirements.
People perceive they have the right to do anything they please when they feel it's right. Louisiana is an open carry state, this means I can walk around certain places with a gun strapped to my hip and no one can arrest you for it. People occasionally try to do such a thing inside a privately owned store with a no guns policy. They have protested being told they could not bring in the firearm and legally can be removed if they fail to adhere to private policy. They thought it was a public place since it's a store. That store is leased/owned by a private company. They may refuse to do business with you for many reasons. They can even refuse to take Credit cards, check, money order, but must always allow physical American currency. They can even make you give them exact amounts, they do not have to make change for you.

However much religion can discriminate, the government cannot. It is true that currently the government is not allowing a marriage license to be given to same sex couples, this is indeed wrong in a sense. One issue is simply the definition. You cannot keep both parties happy by renaming the legally binding document a Civil Union, in most cases neither party would be happy with that either. However, Marriage is the religious definition in my opinion and the current legal definition is a Marriage License, the latter should be changed in title and recreated to include other unions as previously described.

Religion is something you may certainly do, it is within your rights to seek a religion. As long as you meet its requirements they cannot legally keep you out. Starting a new religion is certainly available if you do not meet any particular one's requirements. The tax benefits available to religion though have requirements. I do not know if they were put in place originally or after income tax was illegally kept in place. Truly government should look at religion like other businesses and not separately, another symptom of being there from the start.

Much of this was to attempt to clarify points I made earlier. I feel as though I may have made some duller, please bring it to my attention if anything still seems fuzzy.

In case you're wondering, my Atheist report did uncover some prejudice I wasn't aware of but mostly just showed me how ridiculous other atheists can be. Some congregate in something like a church actually discussing how you are all wrong for believing in a god! Obviously that never made it into the report.  What I did find was that usually problems with Atheists only arose when we try to make a big stink about religions. Don't step on anyone's toes and no one cares. I have no problem with others believing, it doesn't hurt me to let you do so. I'll admit for awhile I did feel all high, mighty, and superior for thinking similarly to those congregating idiots. It didn't make sense to me and I simply dismissed it as everyone else being wrong. Luckily that never lasted to long, I still don't completely get it but that's why we are different.

[Tezkat]

For recognition, well that's another tough break. Currently it seems recognition for gay marriage involves breaking religion over it's collective knee. In other words forcing a religion that does not allow it to marry gay people. That won't happen. Until a religion allows for it and the legal system is ready, a gay marriage has no hope of being given the same respect and recognition by the people. Even then you will not find many willing to openly congratulate a gay couple.
Such a thing flies in the face of many peoples moral standards that were set for them by others. While we all wish the world would change only you can really make it change.

I don't see why recognition of same-sex marriage would necessarily force a religion to do anything. Gay marriage has been legal in most of Canada for the better part of this decade, for instance, and the current text of its federal laws explicitly states that don't you don't have to perform marriages not in accordance with your religious beliefs. Many churches are already quite willing to perform such ceremonies. The ones that aren't don't. The country hasn't fallen apart yet...

[Reese Tora]

Gamma, the 'recognition' that people seek is recognition by civil authorities, because civil unions do not confer the same rights as a marriage license.  Aside from a few jerks who should be beat about the head, noone is talking about requiring any church to recognize anything they don't already recognize.

[Vidar]

I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone.

That statement is patently false: atheists can get married without any church involved in the ceremony. It may once have been a religious ceremony, but it now has become a secular one, supported by the government.
The problem in America is largely that religion has far too much to say about who can and who can't marry, while the religious opinion should have no influence on the secular construct of marriage due to the separation of church and state. Marriage for the church and for the government should be separate entities.
If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, then this should have no influence outside that church, and it should have no bearing on the law.

Regarding prop 8: One of the duties of a government is to protect minorities from oppression by the majority, and in this case the government of California has failed. Much to his credit, the governator is trying to get prop 8 thrown out, but it might take a while for him to succeed.

[Gamma]

I don't see why recognition of same-sex marriage would necessarily force a religion to do anything. Gay marriage has been legal in most of Canada for the better part of this decade, for instance, and the current text of its federal laws explicitly states that don't you don't have to perform marriages not in accordance with your religious beliefs. Many churches are already quite willing to perform such ceremonies. The ones that aren't don't. The country hasn't fallen apart yet...

Ok I got confused somewhere along the lines then.

So if  the marriage license was repaired/replaced to legally abide same sex marriage in the USA, then they would get the recognition they seek?
If so then the misunderstandings I seem to have heard are from my use of "Civil Union". If that's the case then I should stop referring to a revised marriage license as such. I guess with willing religions/churches you could still call it a marriage license and no longer have a need for a differing name to legally separate it from the actual act of marriage.
Though we still come back to the base problem, it is not legally allowed. For no reason though. I love my government so much!

The problem in America is largely that religion has far too much to say about who can and who can't marry, while the religious opinion should have no influence on the secular construct of marriage due to the separation of church and state. Marriage for the church and for the government should be separate entities.
If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, then this should have no influence outside that church, and it should have no bearing on the law.

Most of what you stated there I've said, not at all clearly though. I never was good at a concise statement.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Oh, well. That's all right then.

I thought it was something different... ;-] If it's just touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies, I knew that all already...

I didn't think we were all that touchy and vindictive, but I guess that's just because I am misguided.

No, no. I'm touchy, you're misguided, Darkmoon is vindictive...

... and I can't say what Damaris is, because she'll bully me. ;-]

[Gabi]

I don't see why people in the USA see marriage as a religious ceremony. Here it's a civil ceremony, and the religious part is optional. And gay marriage is allowed.

If you consider marriage to be a religious ceremony, then does that mean two people of different religions can't get married? And what about atheists? Should they be banned from marriage too?

I think of marriage as a compromise between two people to share their lives and support each other, and it should be driven by love, although I know that in reality it isn't always the case.

[thegayhare]

Even if a civil union had all the same rights as marriage (and it doesn't... hell even in the states gay marriage is legal  it still doesn't confer all the same legal rights of marriage yet.) it wouldn't work.  Marriage has long been held up as the gold standard for people.  And I'm meaning Secular marriage here not the religious ceremony.

The implementation of the law must be fair across the board.

If the civil institution is to be called a Civil union  then straight couple shouldn't be allowed to get married under federal law either.  they should be granted civil unions marriage if it is a purely religious ceremony should carry no weight with the legal ramifications  of our society.  If you were to go out and get married by your church then the govenment should not recognise that till you fill out the proper paper work and get your civil union too.  If you don't then you should not be allowed to file joint tax returns, can't have your spouse on your insurance, oh and no visitation rights.  Since that's purely a religious ceremony.

However that aproach however logical would never work simply because the word marriage has been allowed to spread through out the legal system.  People would reject the idea out of hand. "Wait your saying we're not married any more, why how can you take that away from us"  "No your not married but you still have all the same legal rights you had before but you can't call yourself married"  It just wouldn't fly.  and if your not going to make straight couples who don't go through the church ceremony stop using the word marriage it's not fair to ask gay couples not to use the word marriage.  And if it is a religious ceremony then what about the religious institutions that would happily preforem a same sex ceremony.  There are already rabbi who write up same sex marriage contracts, christian churches that are more then willing to preform them, and a multitude of other religions that have no qualms what so ever.  would these people be allowed to call them selves married?

Gay people arn't trying to force churches that don't want to preform marriages to do so (other then the few crazy extremists, and hey every group has there crazy extremists right religious people?)  They just want to share in the same rights and privileged that have been held up by the secular society they live in as the golden standard.  If you force them to do so only under a different title it smacks of separate and unequal. "the Ohh isn't that cute it's almost like they are really married" way of thinking.

and as has been said before the Idea of marriage as a sacred institution is really a new concept.  for the longest time it was simply a business transaction.  a transfer of property  and in that the sacredness wasn't resolute.  the Idea of romantic love guiding marriage is only something that gained prominence in the last 60 to 80 years.   and again the sanctity of it is something thats even younger.

also gamma you said "If the pope says there is to be no Gay marriage then any pure and abiding Christian church will not hold such a ceremony."  that's just blatantly false.  The pope is the authority only among the catholic church not among all Christians.

[TheDXM]

Besides, I left open the ability for a church either a breakaway from a major religion or a brand new one to start offering actual religious Marriage to their differing followers. The DXM made such a point as well. Combined with the Civil Unions it would be defined exactly the same, public opinion would be different.

Well, don't misinterpret me, sir. The point I meant to make was that clinically I believe that the rights of people who are married should be exactly the same whether they are gay or straight, because any institution that states it should be different is acting on prejudice. While Civil Unions are all well and good, and I would rather have them than nothing, it still seems to me as if we are trying to avoid the main issue and are still trying to say that homosexuality isn't good enough for marriage. Why?

Well, let's look at the case in point with Proposition 8: The concept was that the proposition was meant to 'reinforce a more traditional standard of marriage.' And by what standard? Well, the bible of course. I'd raptly enjoy to see anyone attempt to say that the traditional version of marriage that exists outside the bible is between one man and one woman since that would be easily disregarded with literally centuries of evidence to the contrary.

Ultimately I find all this nitpicking unnecessary. Anyone can see that Christianity influenced the American nation from it's birth in many fashions, although some less than others, and that ultimately a great many of our laws were produced from physical tenets of the bible's teachings. The laws against homosexuality, and until recently, sodomy, were a few of such laws. Now, I am not against Christianity, nor it's influence here in my country since I believe it has done many great things, and has helped unite people towards a common goal. That is the purpose of religion in culture, and that is why you see many great nations built upon religion.

But in this case, I believe that church and state must absolutely be separate. Make no mistake: The aversion against such laws are undeniably nothing but homophobia. There is simply no logical conclusion one can reach that says that legalizing gay marriage will hurt our society in any way.

Yet, for some reason, a simple vote can override this fundamental reality.

[superluser]

If the civil institution is to be called a Civil union  then straight couple shouldn't be allowed to get married under federal law either.  they should be granted civil unions marriage if it is a purely religious ceremony should carry no weight with the legal ramifications  of our society.  If you were to go out and get married by your church then the govenment should not recognise that till you fill out the proper paper work and get your civil union too.  If you don't then you should not be allowed to file joint tax returns, can't have your spouse on your insurance, oh and no visitation rights.  Since that's purely a religious ceremony.

Now we're talking!

and as has been said before the Idea of marriage as a sacred institution is really a new concept.  for the longest time it was simply a business transaction.  a transfer of property  and in that the sacredness wasn't resolute.  the Idea of romantic love guiding marriage is only something that gained prominence in the last 60 to 80 years.   and again the sanctity of it is something thats even younger.

You've got it backwards.

The love match marriage was a very recent (as in, last 100-200 years) invention, and had been considered to be too unstable to form the basis of a marriage, but marriage has been considered by some to be a sacred act for quite a long time.  Remember how the Pope refused to give Henry VIII an annulment?

In fact, you can find this all the way back to the Bible:

Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?' He answered them, 'What did Moses command you?' They said, 'Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.' But Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female." "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.'

The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas (13th c) identifies marriage thus:

Matrimony is the seventh Sacrament. It is a sign of the union between Christ and the Church. The efficient cause of Matrimony is the mutual consent expressed in words effective in the present by the parties.

Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church.

This, of course only refers to the concept of a religious marriage, and civil marriage (civil unions, whatever) is still something else which should be open to all who are not otherwise civilly married.

[Angel]

I already wrote a paper about this in my Argument class, but what the heck. Everyone else got a wall o' text, I might as well submit mine.

In case it's unclear, I support gay marriage. I'm also a Catholic. (Hey, separation of church and state, right?)

The easiest arguments to disprove are the medically-based ones. Some people thought AIDS would become rampant if we let homosexuals marry. While it is apparently true that AIDS is more common among homosexual men, the idea that AIDS would spread if gay marriage was legalized is really stupid. If anything, it would decrease. People are going to have sex whether they're married or not. All that proves is that everyone needs to get checked and use protection before deciding to have sex, gay or straight.

Then there's the slippery slope argument: "If we legalize gay marriage, how do we know people won't try to get polygamy, bestiality, pr pedophilia legalized?" First of all, bestiality and pedophilia are illegal throughout the US, and that is spreading. (Yemeni child brides are divorcing their middle-aged husbands because of one girl who found out it was legal; things are looking up.) Secondly, though I disapprove of polygamy, what goes on behind closed doors is none of my business as long as no-one is getting hurt or forced to do something they don't want to do.

Matrimony is the seventh Sacrament. It is a sign of the union between Christ and the Church. The efficient cause of Matrimony is the mutual consent expressed in words effective in the present by the parties.

Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church.

Ahem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

[Vidar]

Matrimony is the seventh Sacrament. It is a sign of the union between Christ and the Church. The efficient cause of Matrimony is the mutual consent expressed in words effective in the present by the parties.

Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church.

Ahem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

Some religious groups ignore the overpopulation problem, and continue to promulgate their dogma regarding procreation. For instance, the catholic church still condemns the use of condoms as something that's against the catholic faith, and prefers to teach that people should not have sex out of wedlock. One of the direct results of this is that 30% of the African population is now infected with aids, and the rest largely has no idea to prevent it, because they have been educated by missionaries that do not teach about the use of contraceptives and the prevention of STD's, but stick to the official dogma.

Also, married gay couples can raise children by adopting them.
Some time ago I saw an episode of a tv-show where a person from one environment is placed in a family with conflicting world-views. In this episode a devoutly, borderline fundamentalist, woman was brought into a household where 2 gay men were raising several children who were all happy, healthy, and well-adjusted. It showed that homosexual couples can raise children just as well as straight couples do. This neatly solves a significant part of the problem of "where do we stash young orphans?".

I think America needs to get over itself and accept homosexuality as a normal part of the human condition. All the arguments against homosexuals and gay marriage are religious anyway, so any law that specifically inhibits the rights of this minority have no secular basis and should therefore be thrown out, like the segregation laws between black and white people in the mid-20th century.

To me, this whole debate about gay rights is one reason why religion should not be tolerated in the government or the courts of law.

[Reese Tora]

Ahem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

Just wanna pop in whit a "fun fact", some states in the US are passing laws to make it impossible for a gay couple to adopt a child.

[superluser]

Then there's the slippery slope argument: "If we legalize gay marriage, how do we know people won't try to get polygamy, bestiality, pr pedophilia legalized?"

``Do you, Fido McBarksalot, take Eve O'Human to be your lawfully wedded wife?  What's that?  Fido can't legally enter a contract?  Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that minors can't enter a contract!''

Ahem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

There are quite a few issues involved in that, but I'll boil it down to two:

(1) Overpopulation is a problem in the developing world, but the developed world seems to be having the opposite problem.
(2) I never said that I agreed with Aquinas.  I do agree with him on the subject of Catholic religious marriages, though I disagree about civil marriage.

In any case, I think we're in agreement.

[Brunhidden]

i often state that the only people i hate are the intolerant, and the french.

largely just to confuse people *shrug*



however i find it appropriate i stumble here just after a Swedish friend of mine said on IM that "*blink* Wow. I don't think I've ever read a joke this racist before, ever." and continued that the joke that offended him was "Where is the world's fastest chicken from?
Ethiopia!"

i then related to him that i once, at work, stood next to a racist joke-off between a skinhead and a baptist. the joke that most disturbed me was "how many Jews can you fit in a Volkswagen? two in front, three in back, and twenty four in the ashtray"

egad, that contest made my skin crawl, but there was nothing i could do as i had to continue doing my work. the boss was no help, as he actually joined in briefly....




i believe there should be a law allowing people within arms reach of someone making a racist joke is allowed one free suckerpunch, shinkick, or kneegroin per racist joke

[Angel]

(2) I never said that I agreed with Aquinas.  I do agree with him on the subject of Catholic religious marriages, though I disagree about civil marriage.

In any case, I think we're in agreement.

Didn't mean to insinuate that I thought you agreed with him, but I guess I did. But yes, we do seem to agree.

[Stygian]

Be nice, some people may need to feel superior to others because in real life they amount to nothing.  Now this does not necessarily apply to anyone here.

How fortunate then that those people are quite aware of that, whether consciously or subconsciously, and will break down into pitiful self-loathing the moment you target the right spot on their fragile egos.

Hey, one might get banned, but personally the satisfaction of knowing that those who cause someone undeserved trouble suffer deeply and personally is sweet enough that at least I get over it pretty quickly. The only times it's an issue is when they don't, in which case they should be punished until they do.

From this I hope you can all discern at least one type of people I do not tolerate, nor believe that anyone should.

To me, this whole debate about gay rights is one reason why religion should not be tolerated in the government or the courts of law.

Actually, that's more a matter of principle, really. Seeing as governing a country is all about laws and economics, hard and tangible and down to earth issues, religion really doesn't come into it at all. Anything vague or requiring faith doesn't belong in a proper constitution, because it has to be a solid, unshakable basis for the structure of the country and the judicial system. It needs to be based on logic and hard evidence, not speculative and esoteric ideas.

As for that whole debate in the U.S., and the way the right wing are going on about things, George Washington himself said that 'the United States are in no sense founded upon the Christian religion'. Now, that might just have been an off comment, but considering the elements of the U.S. constitution and how concerned they were with the issue at the time, I'm sort of thinking that he might very well have been concerned about future issues...

[Alondro]

Actually, that's more a matter of principle, really. Seeing as governing a country is all about laws and economics, hard and tangible and down to earth issues, religion really doesn't come into it at all. Anything vague or requiring faith doesn't belong in a proper constitution, because it has to be a solid, unshakable basis for the structure of the country and the judicial system. It needs to be based on logic and hard evidence, not speculative and esoteric ideas.

Actually, the very concepts of human rights and freedoms upon which our constitution is based are speculative and esoteric by their very nature.  They don't have any factual basis, because they are social and philosophical concepts and not anything concrete.  That's why so many systems of government exist, because you can't find a single concrete and scientific theorem to predict the best government.  It's nothing more than trial and error... alot more error than trial.

[Stygian]

Actually, the very concepts of human rights and freedoms upon which our constitution is based are speculative and esoteric by their very nature.  They don't have any factual basis, because they are social and philosophical concepts and not anything concrete.  That's why so many systems of government exist, because you can't find a single concrete and scientific theorem to predict the best government.  It's nothing more than trial and error... alot more error than trial.

I'd have to disagree with the whole 'speculative' thing, if not with the 'esoteric' part. We base them around general human perceptions derived from instincts and observation. It's not the best ground to stand on, but it works. The key here is that if you're willing to take it far enough to disagree and say that they are still just ideas, and can or even should be disregarded as such and be replaced by some different standards, you're well into the ranges of absolute pragmatism, by the standards of which laws are nothing but figments that can be circumvented by means of enough practical power, and people are... Well, you get it.

The issue here isn't that all these things about most of modern society and human perceptions being based on ideas and half-truths, because that is true and should always be taken into regard. If, however, you believe it to be the right state of things and that any attempts to change the state of things or to work to try and actually build something and through effort enforce a will and its results on your surroundings is nothing but futile, you're just a nihilist, and you really should suffer in the solitude that you create for yourself, because you've practically chosen it.

I am of the opinion that the idea that we can all work together to accomplish something to heighten living standards, increase our power over our surroundings, and ultimately reach some sort of goal because humans are smart enough to realize the benefits is a lot more optimistic and well thought-out than the idea that God or some higher order simply commands us to be good, or we'll be sentenced to damnation and pain.