[filcher]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

The conclusion is that the word 'marriage' is already in use and same-sex arrangements will have to find a word of their own. Civil union perhaps? You are basically demanding that the entire English speaking world change their language to suit a minority of activists.

Do you really think the main concernn of the 'entire english speaking world" is keeping the purity of the english language, as opposed to having an institution not tainted by the gay community?

Quote:

Same-sex marriage is religion, is it?

No. The discussion is about gays and religion, so criticism of religion and it's voiewpoint is expected. Trying to change the discussion into invalid areas, VoR?

Quote:

I would say that to most people, their holy book defines the religion.

No. During the Middle Ages the rich and clerics were educated, and the Church leaders were the ones that not only taught what was in the religious texts, they also compiled and edited them to reflect what they thought was the main tenet of their religion. Whether one thinks the texts are divine or not, the fact is that they are still compiled, written, and edited by humans, who have free will and have biases that may affect the tenets of belief.

Quote:

You are still missing the point. The teachers who use religion as a tool do not have to be religious leaders. They can be political leaders or community leaders or just plain old activists, the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins of their world.

If they are expressing what they claim are religious truths, to a faithful following, are they not religious leaders to those faithful?

Quote:

He doesn't exist.

What evidence do you have he doesn't?

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

Do you really think the main concernn of the 'entire english speaking world" is keeping the purity of the english language, as opposed to having an institution not tainted by the gay community?

I don't really care as whatever the motives, it doesn't excuse a minority attempting to force its views on the majority. The fact is that language is social and the majority view settles contested boundaries.

Quote:

The discussion is about gays and religion...

... yet you keep on talking about marriage.

Quote:

During the Middle Ages the rich and clerics were educated

We are not in the Middle Ages anymore.

Quote:

If they are expressing what they claim are religious truths, to a faithful following, are they not religious leaders to those faithful?

No, they are not, as they are not part of the church. Talking about politics does not make you a political leader, and talking about religions does not make you a religious leader.

Quote:

What evidence do you have he doesn't?

The millennia long absence of any evidence that he does. When you keep looking in your garage and find no evidence of a car, the sensible conclusion is that there is no car.

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

Well thats not correct, maybe if I had said .......

Saint Sinner I just have to warn you that this is a typical VoR tactic. When he sees that he is losing an argument he weasels and concnetrates or compltely irrelevant details with the goal of annoying you till you are sick of him. And also I don't really believe that arguing about grammar is really part of the topic. However if you do decide to continue it in another thread I would be interesting to hear opinion on how this situation compares to the old "all man are created equal and so on" while still keeping slaves. It would be two interesting situations to compare

Quote:

The conclusion is that the word 'marriage' is already in use and same-sex arrangements will have to find a word of their own. Civil union perhaps? You are basically demanding that the entire English speaking world change their language to suit a minority of activists.

Yeah ....the thing is nobody gives a shit except as an excuse to hide their homophobia.

Quote:

No. The discussion is about gays and religion, so criticism of religion and it's voiewpoint is expected.

Good point and it made me think about something. Now obviously it would be wrong to force religious institiuons to change their beliefs. However what if it's the other way around. What for example if certain churches decide to acknowledge and accept gay marraige. Now if the state refuses to respect these churches decision would it violate the churches rights?

Quote:

I would say that to most people, their holy book defines the religion.

Then you obviously haven't met many religious people. The vast majority of people go the sheepp like route of listening to what their leaders are telling them. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if a big part of them haven't even read the bible much less actually studied it

Quote:

It is actually a serious question. Does God have a physical body, which would imply he does experience sensory impulses of some sort, so love and hate and even sex may be experienced by him, or is he simply a spirit without a physical form

Well if we go by the bible we have the old three in one. Which includes Jesus who had a body therefore God had a body if only for a while. Also seeing as how Jesus was the last official contact of God I am curious in whether Jesus has said anything at all about gays. From what i knoiw he didn't but some more well informed religious people might know better

Quote:

I don't really care as whatever the motives, it doesn't excuse a minority attempting to force its views on the majority. The fact is that language is social and the majority view settles contested boundaries.

Tell me about it. Look at all those black people now in the USA. Being able to marry whites, to go to the same toilets as whites....so horrible when a minority forces their views on the majority right VoR?

Quote:

The millennia long absence of any evidence that he does. When you keep looking in your garage and find no evidence of a car, the sensible conclusion is that there is no car.

Unless the car was taken by someone else. Which means it exists but you are merely no longer in contact with it

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

Good point and it made me think about something. Now obviously it would be wrong to force religious institiuons to change their beliefs. However what if it's the other way around. What for example if certain churches decide to acknowledge and accept gay marraige. Now if the state refuses to respect these churches decision would it violate the churches rights?

Nope. Everyone has to follow the law.

Only Vatican City can do what they like, because they make their own law.

[Voice of Reason]

Don't all states make their own laws?

If they make a law then yes, the church is obliged to follow it. The problems arise when the law is not just, or when it is resisted by most of the population - law-makers can get it wrong. When that happens, the state has plenty of mechanisms to enforce it, but very few for the citizens to get rid of it.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

If they make a law then yes, the church is obliged to follow it. The problems arise when the law is not just, or when it is resisted by most of the population - law-makers can get it wrong. When that happens, the state has plenty of mechanisms to enforce it, but very few for the citizens to get rid of it.

Get to the point: is acceptance of civil union but the rejection of gay marriage unjust?

Not really. Civil union satisfies justice.

In fact, I think it's pretty decent to have the distinction, since there are distinctions. Same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different things. So it seems correct to call them different things under law.

[Voice of Reason]

That is pretty much my view. You don't start calling apples oranges just because a bunch orange activists demand it, and a refusal to call apples oranges does not means oranges are inferior to apples, or suggest orangephobia.

I wasn't actually thinking of same-sex unions when i typed that last post. It was more of an Althusser moment. I know you will understand.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

That is pretty much my view. You don't start calling apples oranges just because a bunch orange activists demand it, and a refusal to call apples oranges does not means oranges are inferior to apples, or suggest orangephobia.

Glad we see eye to eye for once.

So then, as it relates to the topic, is it unjust for a church to refuse to 'marry' same sex couples?

i.e. is God (hypothetically) really against homophobes or is he just calling an apple an apple an that's the end of it?

To me, it's strange to suggest that God is really against anyone. Sure, he may be closer to some, but that's not the same as being against others.

[Voice of Reason]

Hypothetically, as this God is supposed to love everyone unconditionally and forgive everybody who says "Ooops...sorry", I don't really see how he can be opposed to anything.

However, that would suggest that he is not exactly a great ally, and if you invoke the principle of 'a friend of everybody is a friend of nobody' not even much of a friend.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

However, that would suggest that he is not exactly a great ally, and if you invoke the principle of 'a friend of everybody is a friend of nobody' not even much of a friend.

Pretty much. Thus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_God_(religion)

[MegaSmilax]

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:

Get to the point: is acceptance of civil union but the rejection of gay marriage unjust?

Not really. Civil union satisfies justice.

In fact, I think it's pretty decent to have the distinction, since there are distinctions. Same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different things. So it seems correct to call them different things under law.

How are they different, beyond how the parts fit, exactly?

[Voice of Reason]

One creates a same-sex couple. The other creates an opposite-sex couple. They are as different as men and women.

[MegaSmilax]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

One creates a same-sex couple. The other creates an opposite-sex couple. They are as different as men and women.

I'd ask you to be MORE vague, but you'd then be at risk for going off-topic. So the dynamics of the couple are SO different that they need a different title, just to set them apart? Same-sex couples get married for the same reasons, be they emotional or financial, as straight couples. Their joining should be called the same thing.

Originally Posted by South Park:

Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?
[everyone listens quietly]
Governor: You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies.
[long silence]
Governor: Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be...
[makes quote with his fingers]
Governor: ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be...
[makes quote with his fingers again]
Governor: ...butt buddies.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: You *are* equal. It's just that, instead of getting engaged, you would be... butt buddies. And everyone is happy!

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

I'd ask you to be MORE vague, but you'd then be at risk for going off-topic.

There is nothing vague about being able to observe that men a women are not the same. Do you need me to point out the differences?

Quote:

Same-sex couples get married for the same reasons, be they emotional or financial, as straight couples. Their joining should be called the same thing.

Straw man. The reasons are irrelevant. The difference is in the nature.

Quote:

So the dynamics of the couple are SO different that they need a different title, just to set them apart?

It is not 'just to set them apart'. It is because they are different things, and hence have a different title for exactly the same reasons that apples and oranges have different titles, or chalk and cheese. Or men and women.

Why, exactly, are you so adamant that they start calling civil unions 'marriages? Do you actually have a sensible reason, or are you just being an activist?

[MegaSmilax]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

There is nothing vague about being able to observe that men a women are not the same. Do you need me to point out the differences?




Straw man. The reasons are irrelevant. The difference is in the nature.




It is not 'just to set them apart'. It is because they are different things, and hence have a different title for exactly the same reasons that apples and oranges have different titles, or chalk and cheese. Or men and women.

Why, exactly, are you so adamant that they start calling civil unions 'marriages? Do you actually have a sensible reason, or are you just being an activist?

So it's a parts thing, gotcha.

I'd venture there's less difference between hetero and homo-sexual marriages than apples and oranges, unless it's you know, it boils down to a parts thing. A sensible reason? Basic equality? That's THAT tough to understand?

Do you have a sensible reason for keeping them separate but equal, or are you just being a douche?

You can go ahead and define the nature and the difference now. Cheers!

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

A sensible reason? Basic equality? That's THAT tough to understand?

Civil union and marriage are already equal. Try again.

Equal is not the same as 'identical'. It does not need the same name to be equal - is that THAT tough to understand?

[lmc]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

Civil union and marriage are already equal. Try again.
Equal is not the same as 'identical'. It does not need the same name to be equal - is that THAT tough to understand?

In what jurisdiction? In most there are significant differences in the rights of those in a civil union and those in a marriage.

Relevant to this topic, I would say that whether gay marriage is legitimate within any particular organised religion should be entirely at the discretion of that religion.

However, so far as the state recognises lifetime commitment as a legal contract it should be absolutely equal for all parties entering into it, regardless of the gender balance of those making the commitment.

I would include the name of the commitment as part of that equality. To allow some to enter into 'Marriage' while others are limited to 'Civil Union' only emphasises the difference, thus the inequality (even if just in terms of esteem), no matter how close the actual legal rights of the two institutions.

How about this? No Marriage. Marriage to remain as a religious ceremony only with no legal recognition or protection by the state. The state would then recognise Civil Unions, or whatever you want to call them, as the only legal contract covering such unions. No descrimination there..

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

In what jurisdiction? In most there are significant differences in the rights of those in a civil union and those in a marriage.

I keep hearing this, but when I ask what they are (as earlier in this thread) all I get is a list of petty and trivial differences. Regardless of that, if they are not equal, then there is a genuine grievance and they should be made equal.

Quote:

I would include the name of the commitment as part of that equality. To allow some to enter into 'Marriage' while others are limited to 'Civil Union' only emphasises the difference, thus the inequality (even if just in terms of esteem), no matter how close the actual legal rights of the two institutions.

Different is not the same as unequal. Nor is the name. It is a label, and any values it carries are subjective akin to branding. At the moment, the activists are busy telling everybody that, in their opinion, a civil union is of lesser value but while that is to some extent a self-fulfilling position it is also too soon to be taken as the truth.

The real test will come in ten years or so, when long term statistics become available. If same-sex couples are staying together, with a lower break-up rate than marriage, then good things will be attached to the label and it will become a good brand with high value. If same-sex couples are splitting up in droves and ridicule is attached to it, it will become a joke brand with low value.

The point here is that how much value is attached to the label, how good a brand it becomes, is completely in the hands of the gay community.

[filcher]

Can anyone point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is unnatural? I have heard this a lot, but don't ever remember reading it.

Quote:

I keep hearing this, but when I ask what they are (as earlier in this thread) all I get is a list of petty and trivial differences. Regardless of that, if they are not equal, then there is a genuine grievance and they should be made equal.

Petty and trivial to you, but not to the ones affected. Civil unions are only allowed in a minority of states in the US, are not recognized federally (so no government regulations to protect the rights of the partner) and is non existent in many countries and strictly illegal (sentence of death) in a few theocracies.

Many religions do restrict access to services as far as gays go, although the gay community are making inroads into many of these services.

Quote:

Different is not the same as unequal. Nor is the name. It is a label, and any values it carries are subjective akin to branding. At the moment, the activists are busy telling everybody that, in their opinion, a civil union is of lesser value but while that is to some extent a self-fulfilling position it is also too soon to be taken as the truth.

Different is not the same; but it does not equate to equal either. I find that my arguments fail me when you argue that rights and benefits that are automatically attached to traditional marriage, are the same as rights that gays have to go to lawyers to get, if they can even gain these rights, which in many cases they can't. Yes, many of the rights can be attained, but it is more difficult for a civil union than a marriage, and it is also costly to gain them. The matter of federal recognition is also a problem, especially as regards survivor benefits and pension funds.

Religion should have the luxury of creating it's own policies, and administering it's rites as required without political pressure to change. In much the same manner, governments should be able to make political decisions without interference from representatives of a foreign power, no matter how high up he is.

Quote:

The real test will come in ten years or so, when long term statistics become available. If same-sex couples are staying together, with a lower break-up rate than marriage, then good things will be attached to the label and it will become a good brand with high value. If same-sex couples are splitting up in droves and ridicule is attached to it, it will become a joke brand with low value.

The arguments against gays being married has nothing to do with break up, attachment or anything else but the sexual orientation of the couple. Only by the elimination of outmoded sexual mores like those preached by the men in dresses, and by teaching others that we have no business in the bedrooms of the neighbors, will gays have any hope of equality, in marriage or society.

If you were correct, then marriage would be viewed with disdain and scorn, and not be so popular that some people marry 5 or 6 times in their life.

Quote:

The point here is that how much value is attached to the label, how good a brand it becomes, is completely in the hands of the gay community.

No. It is a GAY brand. That makes it unequal.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by filcher:

Can anyone point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is unnatural? I have heard this a lot, but don't ever remember reading it.

Romans 1 (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bib..._homosexuality