Same sex marriage.

[Kathryn]

I am a Christian so I do not support it. Is it not enough that I am prochoice about it?

You hit the nail on the head. For some people, no, it's not enough, and that to me is extremely hypocritical and intolerant of THEM. It's not enough for them for you to be gracious and tolerant - the very fact that you don't personally APPROVE is offensive to them.

 

[McBell]

I don't believe that marriage belongs in the domain of law, but in the domain of personal behavior and beliefs.

The fact is that marriage is in the domains of the law.
It is a legal contract, plain and simple.

If one feels they need to be married, it is because of some personal significance that they apply to it and nothing more.

Yes, for some reason they have decided that it is a good idea to enter into a legal contract.

unless, of course, the only reason they are getting married is so they can have guilt free sex...

For me, the significance I give to a marriage between a man and woman simply cannot be applied to two people of the same sex.

Then don't marry a man.
problem solved.

Not because of bias or discrimination, but because of the definition of marriage that I have and the very nature of the significance I give to it.

Personally, I have no issue with how you define marriage for yourself.
nor do I give two cricket farts the significance you give to marriage.

However, if you think that the whole of the state or the whole of the country of the whole of the world is for some reason to follow your personal definition and significance...

 

[Jainarayan]

I agree that that is tragic, but I don't think it should have anything to do with marriage. I think you should be able to designate a person for those things regardless of why you did so or who they were to you. You should not be limited as to who you can designate in that manner.

"Should" doesn't count in court. You completely missed the point that wills can be contested and overturned.

You didn't say anything in contrast to my statement. You simply brought irrelevant materialistic needs.

I'm a realist.

 

[TheKnight]

The fact is that marriage is in the domains of the law.
It is a legal contract, plain and simple.

I understand that by getting married there are legal consequences to that. However, marriage itself is different for different people. What counts as a marriage varies. That the law respects only certain variances is irrelevant to me because I don't believe the law should respect any variance. Especially not with the conference of certain privileges or rights that everyone else does not have access to.

Yes, for some reason they have decided that it is a good idea to enter into a legal contract.

This is not everyone's reason. It may tie into their reason, but the intended goal is not necessarily the formation of a legal contract, even if one forms as a result.

However, if you think that the whole of the state or the whole of the country of the whole of the world is for some reason to follow your personal definition and significance...

I've already stated that I don't think that marriage should be an issue of government. The legal contract that results from marriage should not be based on marriage, but should instead be available to any group of people that should choose to enter into such a contract.

In case you weren't sure, my response to Darkness acknowledged how marriage is viewed, what it currently means legally, why I don't think it should mean anything legally, what marriage means from my perspective, and why I do not support that between a man and woman.

If you interpret my lack of support for same sex marriage as a lack of support for the ability and freedom of gays to enter a legal contract which confers the same benefits as a marriage does, then you have failed to understand my position. The legal contract should, at the very least, be open to everyone. Marriage, on the other hand, is a word that is used to define different things for different people. To ignore that is simply irrational. The event that is referred to by my use of the word marriage cannot be applied to gays. Not because of discrimination, but because the very definition itself rests upon the two people being of opposite gender.

"Should" doesn't count in court. You completely missed the point that wills can be contested and overturned.

This discussion isn't about what counts in court. It's about same-sex marriage.

Let me say it again:

Marriage refers to different things to different people. It can and usually refers to the legal contract that allows for the conference of benefits to two people based on their desired union. I have already said, more than once, that this contract should be open to everyone and I don't believe it should be based on something so fickle and ambiguous as marriage (which I define as the ceremonial recognition of the spiritual unity of the souls of a man and a woman).

If two people want an agreement that allows for the sharing and benefits that you describe as wanting in a marriage, then I see no reason why entrance into such an agreement should be prohibited to anyone for any reason.

In case the rest of that is confusing, then ignore it and know that I support same sex marriage.

 

[McBell]

I understand that by getting married there are legal consequences to that. However, marriage itself is different for different people. What counts as a marriage varies. That the law respects only certain variances is irrelevant to me because I don't believe the law should respect any variance. Especially not with the conference of certain privileges or rights that everyone else does not have access to.

Marriage is the same for everyone in that it is a legal contract.
You cannot get away from that fact.

Now if you want to go off some where and have a ceremony and call it a marriage, that is fine with me.
But without the legal contract, it is not really a marriage.

This is not everyone's reason. It may tie into their reason, but the intended goal is not necessarily the formation of a legal contract, even if one forms as a result.

They still decided to enter a legal contract.
You cannot get around that fact.

I've already stated that I don't think that marriage should be an issue of government. The legal contract that results from marriage should not be based on marriage, but should instead be available to any group of people that should choose to enter into such a contract.

You have it backwards.
The marriage results from the legal contract.
Because without the legal contract, you are not married.

In case you weren't sure, my response to Darkness acknowledged how marriage is viewed, what it currently means legally, why I don't think it should mean anything legally, what marriage means from my perspective, and why I do not support that between a man and woman.

I understand what you were saying.
I am not trying to be argumentative, but the fact is that marriage is a legal contract.
Any thing added to the legal contract is just that, added.

If you interpret my lack of support for same sex marriage as a lack of support for the ability and freedom of gays to enter a legal contract which confers the same benefits as a marriage does, then you have failed to understand my position. The legal contract should, at the very least, be open to everyone. Marriage, on the other hand, is a word that is used to define different things for different people. To ignore that is simply irrational. The event that is referred to by my use of the word marriage cannot be applied to gays. Not because of discrimination, but because the very definition itself rests upon the two people being of opposite gender.

You can Humpty Dumpty the word marriage to your hearts content.
It matters not to me how you personally define it.

I am concerned with the way the legal contract marriage is defined.
Your personal definitions do not mean squat to any one other than yourself.

This discussion isn't about what counts in court. It's about same-sex marriage.

This thread IS about what counts in court.
Please read the OP if you think differently.

Let me say it again:

Marriage refers to different things to different people. It can and usually refers to the legal contract that allows for the conference of benefits to two people based on their desired union. I have already said, more than once, that this contract should be open to everyone and I don't believe it should be based on something so fickle and ambiguous as marriage (which I define as the ceremonial recognition of the spiritual unity of the souls of a man and a woman).

Again you have it backwards.

If two people want an agreement that allows for the sharing and benefits that you describe as wanting in a marriage, then I see no reason why entrance into such an agreement should be prohibited to anyone for any reason.

In case the rest of that is confusing, then ignore it and know that I support same sex marriage.

My apologies if you took my last post as implying that you don't.

 

[Father Heathen]

Which is a bit better than what happens to rapists 2 out of 3 times in our own society, which is nothing.

Wait, wait. Surely you don't actually think forcing a rape victim or marry her attacker is better, do you?

 

[Father Heathen]

The Bible supports slavery and forbids the eating of pork and the wearing of "mixed fabrics." It requires rapists to pay a fine to the victim's father, then marry her.


As a Christian, is this what you support?

Don't forget that the bible also gives instruction on how to sell your own daughter into sexual slavery (Exodus 21:7-11). It's surprising that people don't toss such a ghastly book into the garbage, much less that they actually use it as a moral compass.

 

[Jainarayan]

This discussion isn't about what counts in court. It's about same-sex marriage.

Marriage is adjudicated by the courts to create a binding contract between two unrelated persons who otherwise have no rights on each other's behalf. I already said that when a person dies intestate their assets go to the state, then to next of kin. Marriage, heterosexual or same sex, establishes legal familial relationship that only exists by blood or other legal means (e.g. adoption). I think enough people have explained the need for a marriage contract.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I'm guessing from the OP that you're a fan of Constitutional liberties, eh?

Yes. Very much so.

 

[Darkness]

You hit the nail on the head. For some people, no, it's not enough, and that to me is extremely hypocritical and intolerant of THEM. It's not enough for them for you to be gracious and tolerant - the very fact that you don't personally APPROVE is offensive to them.

It is hypocritical and intolerant of me to ask for some semblance of logical reasoning? I am offended by the idea that people do not personally APPROVE of same-sex relationships, just as I am offended by the idea that people believe black people are INFERIOR to white people. I am not a liberal, so the idea of allowing something that you deem immoral seems silly, to be perfectly honest. I am glad he/she supports the legality of same-sex marriage, but his/her reasoning is flawed. I think that incestuous relationships are harmful, and thus should be illegal, and do not not defer to any standard of tolerance or liberal freedoms.

 

[Katzpur]

I am offended by the idea that people do not personally APPROVE of same-sex relationships, just as I am offended by the idea that people believe black people are INFERIOR to white people.

I think that incestuous relationships are harmful, and thus should be illegal, and do not not defer to any standard of tolerance or liberal freedoms.

Hold on there. You are offended by the idea that people do not personally approve of same-sex relationships and yet you don't approve of incestuous relationships. What's up with that?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hold on there. You are offended by the idea that people do not personally approve of same-sex relationships and yet you don't approve of incestuous relationships. What's up with that?

"I think that incestuous relationships are harmful". Who do same-sex relationships harm?


Never mind. Obviously the omnipotent and infinitely perfect being is harmed. My mistake.

 

[Katzpur]

"I think that incestuous relationships are harmful". Who do same-sex relationships harm?


Never mind. Obviously the omnipotent and infinitely perfect being is harmed. My mistake.

I see. I think what you're saying is that you have the right to determine who is harmed in a relationship and who isn't. Is that right? Look, I'm not in favor of incestuous relationships either, but there are a few cultures in which they are socially acceptable. Ever think of that? They'd probably think that someone who tried to interfere in these relationships was out of line.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I see. I think what you're saying is that you have the right to determine who is harmed in a relationship and who isn't. Is that right? Look, I'm not in favor of incestuous relationships either, but there are a few cultures in which they are socially acceptable. Ever think of that?

Everyone determines everything for themselves, so yes, yes I am saying I have that right, as do you.

 

[blackout]

I see. I think what you're saying is that you have the right to determine who is harmed in a relationship and who isn't. Is that right? Look, I'm not in favor of incestuous relationships either, but there are a few cultures in which they are socially acceptable. Ever think of that? They'd probably think that someone who tried to interfere in these relationships was out of line.

Potential offspring might very well be harmed by the DNA deformities caused by an incestuous relationships.

I think that would be the primary concern.

 

[Darkness]

Hold on there. You are offended by the idea that people do not personally approve of same-sex relationships and yet you don't approve of incestuous relationships. What's up with that?

Hmmm... let's see one has many areas of potential harm associated with incest (e.g. issues of authority), whereas there are zero harms associated with homosexuality.

I see. I think what you're saying is that you have the right to determine who is harmed in a relationship and who isn't. Is that right? Look, I'm not in favor of incestuous relationships either, but there are a few cultures in which they are socially acceptable. Ever think of that? They'd probably think that someone who tried to interfere in these relationships was out of line.

Why should I give a damn what other cultures believe? All cultures are not created equal. Western society is vastly superior to Middle-Eastern cultures.

 

[haribol]

Hmmm... let's see one has many areas of potential harm associated with incest (e.g. issues of authority), whereas there are zero harms associated with homosexuality.



Why should I give a damn what other cultures believe? All cultures are not created equal. Western society is vastly superior to Middle-Eastern cultures.

What you call western come from eastern sources. If you say Christian culture, do you know its source?
First read what other cultures have to say since today you have the access to go thru them. Do not make narrows judgments. This will hurt others. You with all your knowledge, experiences and arguments will fail in your debate over this subtle issue. You are on a religious forum where people from different religions and cultures participate. Do you care for them ? If you do, withdraw your narrowed statements.

 

[Draka]

Why should I give a damn what other cultures believe? All cultures are not created equal. Western society is vastly superior to Middle-Eastern cultures.

FYI, incestuous relationships and marriages are legal among adults in...Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, France, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain...and...the laws vary from state to state in the US. I don't seem to see any mention of a Middle Eastern country there at all. You can believe that Western society is "vastly superior" to Middle-Eastern cultures all you like, though I fail to see what it has to do with the argument.

 

[Kathryn]

It is hypocritical and intolerant of me to ask for some semblance of logical reasoning? I am offended by the idea that people do not personally APPROVE of same-sex relationships, just as I am offended by the idea that people believe black people are INFERIOR to white people. I am not a liberal, so the idea of allowing something that you deem immoral seems silly, to be perfectly honest. I am glad he/she supports the legality of same-sex marriage, but his/her reasoning is flawed. I think that incestuous relationships are harmful, and thus should be illegal, and do not not defer to any standard of tolerance or liberal freedoms.

Giving and living personal freedoms includes "allowing" others to do things that you may personally not choose for your own life. Does that mean that you APPROVE of all those things? Of course not - that would be a ridiculous condition to impose on a society which offers personal freedoms.

We can't and don't and never will agree that the personal choices that everyone makes are all within our own value system, and that's not even the point. The point is that we give them the FREEDOM to make their own moral choices, as long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others.

I was in an interracial marriage for eleven years, so believe me, I understand the difference between approval and tolerance. I don't need it preached to me.

I never expected everyone to agree with my choice of a mate. All I demanded was respect for my right to make that choice. As long as people treated my children and me with tolerance and respect, I was fine with that. To push further and demand their approval, or be perpetually offended if they didn't approve, seemed not only a waste of emotional energy, but hypocritical. If I wanted the freedom to have my own opinions and base my decisions on those opinions, they deserve the same right, even when those opinions were not shared by me.

 

[Darkness]

What you call western come from eastern sources. If you say Christian culture, do you know its source?
First read what other cultures have to say since today you have the access to go thru them. Do not make narrows judgments. This will hurt others. You with all your knowledge, experiences and arguments will fail in your debate over this subtle issue. You are on a religious forum where people from different religions and cultures participate. Do you care for them ? If you do, withdraw your narrowed statements.

So, when only 18 percent of Lebanese, 14 percent of Turks and 6 percent of Jordans believe that homosexuality should be accepted, I am supposed to pretend that is equal to 86 percent in Sweden, 83 percent in France and 82 percent in Spain? In the United States, we have our crazy people. But the difference is that our debate is over whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt a baby and be granted legal rights, not if they deserve the right to live. There are plenty of wonderful people from the Middle-East. Badran and .lava are great examples. Perhaps, you have never heard me talk about my own country, the United States, so you are not used to my scathing criticisms. For God's sake, One in Four Gay or Lesbian High School Students Are Homeless. You have to be freaking nuts to throw a child out because he or she dares to love the same gender/sex. Still, it is better than the public executions of Iran.