Marriage and sexuality

[sojourner]

Good post soj. However, the problem most SSM advocates would have with this is that you are simply adding one more step to the process of attaining equal rights, which only makes it more difficult. Why should the terminology be changed to "civil union" instead of "marriage"? Would there be any differences between the benefits of the two?

No. In fact, heterosexual couples who got married outside of religion wouldn't be "married," either. They, too, would be in a civil union."
In fact, there wouldn't be another step, because all the gov't. does is recognize legally what the Church has done, in the case of a church wedding. What I attempt to do is to take the religious stigma out of the civil process. Those who don't get married in churches don't care if God sanctions the union or not, so why does nomenclature matter?

The sticker is that some churches do marry same sex couples. But the gov't. doesn't largely recognize them. It's really more important at this point for the gov't to recognize the union than it is for the Church, so why not just let the churches do what they do, and let the gov't advocate for full rights by granting the same "status" that it already grants to church-married hetero couples?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Do you really think that homosexuals do that? Do you really think that they're unaware or ambivalent toward the consequences? In fact, they do what they do in spite of what we do to them. You really are a bigot!

what took you so long? lol

 

[madhatter85]

Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter85
Based on the supreme court ruling that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

That's not what the court ruled. That is the reasoning behind the ruling. The court ruled that the 14th amendment right to equal protection made the Virginia law against mixed-race marriage unconstitutional. This ruling was based, in part, on the fact that marriage is a fundamental right. And one of the reasons that marriage is a fundamental right is that its fundamental to our very existence and survival. That is what we call dicta, not a ruling.

Nevertheless, it doesn't help your argument. The reason that marriage is f. to our e. and s. is not because that's where biological reproduction happens. As we all know, you don't have to be married for that. The reason that m. is f. to our e. and s. is that is where children are reared, and they need stable families. And, of course, that applies to children whose parents adopt them, give birth to them, are of the same sex, or different sex. In other words, this finding of the court applies equally well to same-sex couples.

Again you are equating homosexuality to ethnicity. They have absolutely nothing in common which i have proven earlier.

Homosexuality is behavioral and not inheritable.
Ethnicity is not behavioral and is 100% inheritable.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

So you agree that sexual urges, even homosexual ones can be controlled. Thanks

Yes usually in a civilized society people control certain urges like wanting to hit someone for being foolish or idiotic.

 

[sojourner]

Then I take it you do not think all those people who has done a secular marriage, as in not in civil unions but in real secular marriages, are actually married?

Here's the misunderstanding, and the stigma attached to this whole debate. Even a church marriage isn't "actual" until a license is filed with the county. What's the real, actual difference, as far as civil status goes, whether it's called "marriage" or "civil union?" None. Both would have the same license. Church-married couples would have a State-issued "civil union" license, in addition to the marriage certificate provided by their church (that's what happens even now!)

"Actually married" depends upon the state license.

Or, let the State have the term "married," and let the churches use something else, like "joined," for example.

For our purposes (state rights) what the church thinks doesn't matter. We get confused when we try to shove the two concepts together. What the Church does is usually sanctioned by the State. What the State does is not usually sanctioned by the Church. So let the Church be picky. But let the gov't grant a civil license regardless. Problem solved.

 

[madhatter85]

No. In fact, heterosexual couples who got married outside of religion wouldn't be "married," either. They, too, would be in a civil union."
In fact, there wouldn't be another step, because all the gov't. does is recognize legally what the Church has done, in the case of a church wedding. What I attempt to do is to take the religious stigma out of the civil process. Those who don't get married in churches don't care if God sanctions the union or not, so why does nomenclature matter?

The sticker is that some churches do marry same sex couples. But the gov't. doesn't largely recognize them. It's really more important at this point for the gov't to recognize the union than it is for the Church, so why not just let the churches do what they do, and let the gov't advocate for full rights by granting the same "status" that it already grants to church-married hetero couples?

The problem is that they won't stop until they get the title of marriage.

Referendum 71 in Washington. they said it was not about marriage, that it was about protecting domestic partnerships. However, when advocates for Ref. 71 were interviewed after it passed, they said, "Now that it has passed we'll talk can about same sex marriage."

 

[Kerr]

Why not? They are expected to be controlled everywhere else. why are homosexuals the exception?

They aren´t. I just don´t believe in control for the sake of control. If there is not a reason to control yourself, and if you are with the one you love, why should you do that? Why should you keep back? Why not let it go and share a wonderful moment with the one you love?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Again you are equating homosexuality to ethnicity. They have absolutely nothing in common which i have proven earlier.

Homosexuality is behavioral and not inheritable.
Ethnicity is not behavioral and is 100% inheritable.

um you have once again proven nothing

simply saying "Homosexuality is behavioral and not inheritable."

doesnt make it true

I could as easily say "My name is Sven I like licking people called Olaf"

the idea that "Homosexuality is behavioral and not inheritable." is YOUR OWN, which is understandable that as a bigot you need a framework to justify your hatred.

Since we WERE discussing science, but of course when presented with anythign contrary to your ignorant hate filled rants, you merely change the issue....

and science, well the jury is STILL out.... the idea that "Homosexuality is behavioral and not inheritable." is once again your own, it is not universally accepted by the scientific community.... it is however pretty much accepted by bigots.

:sarcastic

Again, when you make a coherant argument, please let me know....

 

[sojourner]

Based on the supreme court ruling that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Sexual indiscretions are legal grounds for divorce. Marriage implies monogamy.

Sooo... homosexuality automatically implies promiscuity???

By the way, I wonder how many married couples are unfaithful?

 

[Kerr]

Here's the misunderstanding, and the stigma attached to this whole debate. Even a church marriage isn't "actual" until a license is filed with the county. What's the real, actual difference, as far as civil status goes, whether it's called "marriage" or "civil union?" None. Both would have the same license. Church-married couples would have a State-issued "civil union" license, in addition to the marriage certificate provided by their church (that's what happens even now!)

"Actually married" depends upon the state license.

Or, let the State have the term "married," and let the churches use something else, like "joined," for example.

For our purposes (state rights) what the church thinks doesn't matter. We get confused when we try to shove the two concepts together. What the Church does is usually sanctioned by the State. What the State does is not usually sanctioned by the Church. So let the Church be picky. But let the gov't grant a civil license regardless. Problem solved.

So basically it is just a game of words? Never liked those.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

The problem is that they won't stop until they get the title of marriage.

Referendum 71 in Washington. they said it was not about marriage, that it was about protecting domestic partnerships. However, when advocates for Ref. 71 were interviewed after it passed, they said, "Now that it has passed we'll talk can about same sex marriage."

My question to you is why are you so scared of gay marriage its not like it will have any effect on your personal life in any way?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Yes usually in a civilized society people control certain urges like wanting to hit someone for being foolish or idiotic.

ha ha frubals

 

[sojourner]

Why not? They are expected to be controlled everywhere else. why are homosexuals the exception?

Because they have a right to express physical love with whomever they choose, just as heterosexuals do. It's absurd to say, "It's OK for you to be homosexual, but don't ya dare use it!" You're the one who's "excepting" homosexuals and imposing a "no nookie" clause upon them.

 

[sojourner]

Again you are equating homosexuality to ethnicity. They have absolutely nothing in common which i have proven earlier.

Homosexuality is behavioral and not inheritable.
Ethnicity is not behavioral and is 100% inheritable.

I'm not so sure homosexuality is just behavioral. It may be genetic. Like dwarfism. People don't choose to be dwarves. But they don't "pass it on," either.:cover:

 

[Mr Cheese]

My question to you is why are you so scared of gay marriage its not like it will have any effect on your personal life in any way?

dude, we've been over this

he's scared of SS marriage because:

It will lower the GDP of America

Less babies will result, which as it lowers the GDP,

we will also have less people, less "ideas".... If SS couple are allowed to marry, humanity may die, as SS couples do NOT contribute to the survival of the human race, due to their insistance on NOT PUTTING PENISES IN VAGINAS....

I think thats covered his "wonderful precious and well thought out argument"

OH OH, and the GDP will be lowered as it takes money to convince people that homosexuals (as genetically flawed beings, although in one breath he concludes homosexuality is not inherited by the genes, while stating garbage such as this in another breath)are "ok"....


In essence he has no argument

 

[sojourner]

The problem is that they won't stop until they get the title of marriage.

Referendum 71 in Washington. they said it was not about marriage, that it was about protecting domestic partnerships. However, when advocates for Ref. 71 were interviewed after it passed, they said, "Now that it has passed we'll talk can about same sex marriage."

Not if the title means nothing. What they perceived was a sort of "second-rate" acknowledgment. In my system, everyone would have the same title -- even hetero couples -- as far as the State is concerned. Only churches would use the term "marriage." That is a different issue that should rightfully be taken out of the civil rights equation.

You see, equal rights is a cultural debate. Marriage sacramentality is a theological debate.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I'm not so sure homosexuality is just behavioral. It may be genetic. Like dwarfism. People don't choose to be dwarves. But they don't "pass it on," either.:cover:

Passing on a dwarfism:

dwarf tossing, banned in the UK, but still alive in Europe

 

[sojourner]

So basically it is just a game of words? Never liked those.

Except that the words are very definite descriptors of two very different acts. The act of sanctioning a civil union is fundamentally different from acknowledging a call to marriage.

Words are good, if they serve to clarify, not cloud issues.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Why not? They are expected to be controlled everywhere else. why are homosexuals the exception?

No one here is saying homosexuals should be allowed to do what they want where ever they want.

In fact homosexuals aren't asking for anything more than what heterosexual couples are given if they decide to get married.

I just don't know why this scares people so much???

 

[Kerr]

Except that the words are very definite descriptors of two very different acts. The act of sanctioning a civil union is fundamentally different from acknowledging a call to marriage.

Words are good, if they serve to clarify, not cloud issues.

Guess my parents aren´t married after all then .