A More Faithful Way to Talk About Marriage

"There are many things Christians agree upon. We have the Spirit of God leading us into the truth. And we have an objective standard, a standard that is outside ourselves that is true."

-----------

PeterHuff,

Maybe but you can't seem to agree on the precise nature of the Spirit of your God and you can't seem to agree on what your standard means. Just read a few post here to see what I mean. If the message was so clear and objective and if it was communicated to each of you by the same God, why can't you seem to agree on even the basic nature of your God or it's message? Because each of your interpretations is by definition, subjective and therefore different.

"Firstly you assume that what God has said by His word cannot be interpreted correctly, which is not the case (2 Timothy 2:15). "

----------------

PeterHuff,

See what I mean. You think your book is the word of a god just because it says so. That's just your subjective opinion. Fair enough but please don't appeal to logic while advancing such claims with no supporting evidence.

You think your "interpretation" is correct but that is just your subjective opinion because there's no way to verify your accuracy except hearsay from a book that only begs the question. Every interpretation is subjective, including yours. That why they call it interpretation and not fact.

I do admire the way you have appointed yourself as the ultimate arbiter of objectivity though. (I know. It's not your opinion, it's what God really thinks ... according to your interpretation). You must be very proud to hold such a high position of biblical authority. Right up there next to your god. How convenient for you.

And putting a capital "G" on the word is really convincing too. Just capitalize the word and it's meaning is unassailable. That's Priceless with a capital "P"!

Hi Freestinker,

Sorry, a typo. The Biblical reference was Matthew 7:26, not 24:26. Sorry, my mistake in reference to the statement below.

ME: "But we built on the solid foundation of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:3), not as you build upon, sinking sand (Matthew 24:26)"

FS: "If your god's moral code was as objective as you claim, then Christians would all agree on such matters but they obviously don't so then it's just a matter of whose subjective opinion you prefer. You just prefer yours. I can appreciate that."

You are using a fallacy of logic by claiming that unless everyone believes the same thing, that thing cannot be known. It can be known only by thinking God's thoughts after Him. Once you read into His thoughts something that is not that states what is opposite to what He has said, then you run into problems by putting words in His mouth that He has not spoken.

His spoken word to us is objective and it is clear. My prayer is that God would show you how plain it is.

You understand the Ten Commandments, for I'm sure you practice them, just not perfectly as God requires you too. When you practice them, it shows a) you are created in God's image and likeness because you do what is good, and b) you understand the law when you practice what is good (Romans 2:13-16). You understand the two greatest commandments that Jesus instructed on, to love God and to love your neighbor. In these ways you live according to the Christian framework, the Christian world view, and yet you deny this very world view and the God who created you and supplant it with your own world view and your own make believe god (possibly yourself or some mythological god, for those are the options if you do not believe in the true and living God) that has no explanatory power.

The Big Bang and evolution, so the text books tell us, had their beginning by random, chance happenstance. How does chance organize anything and how any uniformity can come from chance or random happenings, from a blind watchmaker needs to be explained? How does something without intelligence make purpose and meaning and how does matter begin to think? How does life originate from non-life or truth and knowledge from inorganic substances? How does logic, itself not of the material world, originate from something that was purely matter? These are questions your world view, your framework needs to answer for it to be sensible.

FS: "Otherwise, we would have "objective" proof that your god not only exists but has some verifiable eternal patent on human morality and the debate would be over but so far, you have provided absolutely no "objective" evidence for such a claim."

The evidence is in the impossibility of the contrary. Subjective opinion does not make anything moral, for there are as many beliefs as there are opinions. Which one will you choose on any given topic and what is objective about subjectivity, if it only has itself as the standard, or some other subjective opinion as the standard?

FS: "So unless you are God or are somehow authorized to speak on behalf of this God, it's just your subjective opinion. Fair enough."

Firstly you assume that what God has said by His word cannot be interpreted correctly, which is not the case (2 Timothy 2:15). Secondly you assume that His word is not the standard that we can judge anything by (Psalm 36:9), so you place your authority above that of the One who gives you life and being. Remember, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5b)

FS: "Think about it Peter, the reason Christians can't even agree among themselves on exactly what their god means is because each of their religious interpretations is by necessity, completely subjective. That's why Christians can reach so many different conclusions about what you claim is so objective."

That is not true with every Christian. There are many things Christians agree upon. We have the Spirit of God leading us into the truth. And we have an objective standard, a standard that is outside ourselves that is true.

There are different stages of maturity in a Christian's life (Hebrews 5:11-6:1; Philippians 3:12-16; ), from the time we are regenerated by God's Spirit until we pass from this life when our body dies (Romans 8:9-11; John 3:6-8).

But we built on the solid foundation of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:3), not as you build upon, sinking sand (Matthew 24:26)

All I am doing at this moment is showing you how flimsy your house is built, by shine the light of God's word into its crevices where you can see that the foundation rests on NOTHING.

Hi Freestinker,

ME: "If you like. That does not make what you believe true.

FS: "And it doesn't make what I think is false either!"

It does when you contradict what God says is true. You're in limbo. You can't say either way because you don't know. You have already admitted that you have no proof of God. You have no objective standard that you can point to. So it boils down to your preference. Your preference does not make sense of qualitative values because it is just a preference. Hitler's preference of good is no doubt different from yours, but it is just another subjective opinion. So make sense of why your subjective opinion is the valid one - because YOU say it is?

And since you don't know, I point you to the Lord Jesus Christ that you may know God. He is the only way, but once you do, God verifies His proof of all things - that His Word is true.

FS: "And if you think any gods are objective, then you have a serious misunderstanding of the nature of religious faith."

I don't believe in "gods", only the one true and living God. Small 'g' gods are not objective because they are a figment of peoples imaginations. Peoples imaginations are subjective except when they think God's thoughts after Him, because only He sees things objectively, for only He sees things in their entirety, as they are in every aspect.

FS: "Religious faith is by definition, belief without evidence and as such is anything but objective."

Faith in Jesus Christ is a relationship with God through His Son. One of the evidences I have been showing you now for days upon days is that without presupposing God you can't make sense of anything. We have just touched on a couple of areas such as morals and truth, and even those just slightly. NOTHING MAKES SENSE WITHOUT GOD.

FS: "That doesn't mean it's right or wrong, it just means that every religious faith is by definition subjective, including yours."

I'll only defend the Christian God because all other gods are so called gods (1 Corinthians 8:5-7). Actually faith in the Christian God is the only way you can know anything as objective, anything as sure, anything as true, anything as right or wrong. You keep borrowing from the Christian position when you speak of values such as "right" or when you speak truly about anything. Logic stems from God, not evolution.

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"In the same way, gays are going to fight much harder to legalize gay marriage than heteros are going to fight against it.

But that does not mean that gay marriage is a good thing.

----------------------

ROHITCUNY,

It's not only gays who are fighting for marriage equality. In fact, gays alone could never win this fight because there aren't enough of them. Heteros and gays together are winning this fight.

Whether that's good or bad is just a matter of opinion. I certainly do think it's good and evidently so do a solid majority in many States across America and the trend clearly favors marriage equality.

Ironically for you, I think open forums like these tend to expose the weaknesses in the anti-equality arguments and are helping convince people that marriage equality is a fair and just legal policy that poses no harm to anyone. Keep up the good work and marriage equality will be inevitable!

PeterHuff wrote:
"If you like. That does not make what you believe true. The fact of the matter is any world view outside of the Christian world view cannot make sense of issues of truth and morality because there is no objective standard or final basis in which to reference these things by in anything but the Judeao-Christian God."

---------------

PeterHuff,

And it doesn't make what I think is false either!

And if you think any gods are objective, then you have a serious misunderstanding of the nature of religious faith. Religious faith is by definition, belief without evidence and as such is anything but objective. That doesn't mean it's right or wrong, it just means that every religious faith is by definition subjective, including yours.

Otherwise, we would have "objective" proof that your god not only exists but has some verifiable eternal patent on human morality and the debate would be over but so far, you have provided absolutely no "objective" evidence for such a claim. So unless you are God or are somehow authorized to speak on behalf of this God, it's just your subjective opinion. Fair enough.

Think about it Peter, the reason Christians can't even agree among themselves on exactly what their god means is because each of their religious interpretations is by necessity, completely subjective. That's why Christians can reach so many different conclusions about what you claim is so objective.

If your god's moral code was as objective as you claim, then Christians would all agree on such matters but they obviously don't so then it's just a matter of whose subjective opinion you prefer. You just prefer yours. I can appreciate that.

ROHI:
It is amazing how many people think that their saying, "None. Zero. Zip. Nada" settles the issue! It is like appointing yourself judge and jury in your own case! "Conversation closed, I win!" :)
An argument is settled only when both parties agree that it is.
>>>I wasn't declaring myself the winner of anything, merely reinforcing the idea of NO SENSE in having different laws governing legal unions between couples based on their combined collection of genitalia.

ROHI:
If it were really true that "Civil marriage is a legally binding contract between consenting adults which endues them with a boatload of rights and responsibilities regarding each other", then divorce by mutual consent should be legal in all states, but it is not. That means that the State is the third party to that contract.
>>>While marriage is a contract, it is a different sort of contract than a cell phone plan. Aspects of the relationship can change, and those changes can make the couple no longer suited to remain united. I can promise you that had the state said that I could not legally divorce my ex-husband, I still would have moved out for the sake of my own sanity.
There are cotracts that have escape clauses.

ROHI:
Whether the State should also be a third party in a "gay marriage" is something not all gays would accept.
>>>Legalizng gay marriage will not require all gay couples to involve the state in their relationship any more than the legality of straight marriage requires straight couples to. No one is REQUIRED to marry. It's an option, and when you choose that option, you voluntarily involve the state by signing a legal document that is placed on file with the court system.

ROHI:
Suppose for instance that the Catholic Church allowed gay marriage in Italy but then insisted that no divorce is possible (as has been the case for heterosexuals) gays might not be all of them so happy.
>>>Straight Catholic couples get divorced every day. The fact that their church still considers them married is irrelevant to the state. I don't know if the Catholic church is still the head of the Italian secular government as well, but I'm not talking about Italy, I'm talking about the United States. Neither the Catholic church nor any other makes the law here.

ROHI:
When you insist on the right to gay marriage you are like a person who goes into a restaurant and orders a meal without first looking at the menu.
>>>No, I'm the person who says that just because I order a rare steak doesn't mean that everyone in the restaurant must have a rare steak, and if they don't then they're not really eating dinner.

Hi Freestinker,

FS: "Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Won't we?"

If you like. That does not make what you believe true. The fact of the matter is any world view outside of the Christian world view cannot make sense of issues of truth and morality because there is no objective standard or final basis in which to reference these things by in anything but the Judeao-Christian God.

Objectivity is not biased. God knows and sees every facet of every fact, how facts are related, and makes the good pronouncement on what is right, for that is His nature, that is who He is. Only in knowing God's side do we see the light of any moral issue. Those who live like God does not exist keep borrowing from His reference when they make a correct, good, just moral judgment because all human beings have been created in His image and likeness. Mankind has fallen and goes against Him and land up suppressing the truth of His righteousness in their unrighteousness.

FS: "Equal rights can be slowed but they can't be stopped because those of us who support marriage equality have much more to gain than you have to lose."

That is where you are wrong. You have so much more to lose. Eternal life is there to be lost. The warnings God has given us are there.

As I have said before, I support equal rights in marriage. Both sexes have the equal right to marry, but God sets the boundary on what marriage is, between a man and a woman. That is natural, that is good, period. Anything else will met His judgment. That is the low down of the debate, whether or not you agree or disagree, like or dislike it.

Equal rights can be slowed but they can't be stopped because those of us who support marriage equality have much more to gain than you have to lose. That's why we have the strength and determination to win this fight and make no mistake about it, we are winning. Just like the end of slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage, marriage equality is inevitable but you already know that, don't you?
Posted by: Freestinker
----------
The first part is true. In fact economists know that if the US did not limit the imports of sugar then the cost of sugar would drop and millions of Americans would benefit. But the small group of people who produce sugar would not like the price drop and they fight it. The consequence is that the benefit of the small group of people in the sugar industry trumps the benefit of far more people who consume sugar. Similarly oil companies fight for tax breaks and farmers fight for price supports. All these groups win their fights which are AGAINST public interest.

In the same way, gays are going to fight much harder to legalize gay marriage than heteros are going to fight against it.

But that does not mean that gay marriage is a good thing.

It is completely legitimate for gays to fight for respect and what they need. But when they fight for "gay marriage" they are rather like cows fighting for dog food in the name of equality. Cows do need food, but dog food is not the right food for them.

In the same way, the contemporary marriage which is designed for heterosexuals is not the right institution for gays.

But you are not going to see my point. You will keep fighting for a foolish goal, distract Obama from important issues like economy or health care, and who knows, you may even increase anti-gay prejudice.

I am curious though, why is it that you are so adamant about prohibiting marriage equality, when nothing about it affects you in the least? Exactly what do you have to lose by giving equal rights to others?
Posted by: Freestinker
----------
"equal rights" is just a slogan. If two people run a race, one comes first and another comes second, are they both entitled to the prize on the ground of equality? I assume you would not say that they are both entitled. We use equality as a slogan, but we do not ask what kinds of equality make sense and what kinds do not.

But my main problem is that issues which used to be run by Churches are now being run by courts. When you cite the US constitution, the 9 jusdges in black robes are behind that citing.

I am with those people who say that the issue is not religious. But I think this is also not an issue for lawyers. Lawyers know even less than priests in my view.

These are issues for psychologists and social scientists (with minimal help from lawyers). What kind of arrangements are best for everyone? What will further the happiness and wellbeing of both gays and heterosexuals?

These are not questions which lawyers are competent to answer.

There are many people who think that the US constitution (or the Declaration of Independence) answers all questions but it does not. And constantly bringing in talk about equality only muddies the water.

Suppose I taught a class and gave every student a B- on the grounds that this was the average performance of the class, and in the name of equality, all students would get the same grade. Then the next time I taught, I would find that most of the good students avoided taking my course.
They want to earn an A and they want to GET an A.

Equality is not a "one size fits all" solution to every human problem.

It makes no more sense than different treatment and differnt laws for heterosexual and homosexual couples. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Civil marriage is a legally binding contract between consenting adults which endues them with a boatload of rights and responsibilities regarding each other. Those rights and responsibilities apply whether or not children are ever introduced into the equation. If it were about children, those rights and responsibilities would not take effect until such time as children were either produced or adopted, and would automatically cease when the youngest child in the family turned 18.
Posted by: lepidopteryx
--------
It is amazing how many people think that their saying, "None. Zero. Zip. Nada" settles the issue! It is like appointing yourself judge and jury in your own case! "Conversation closed, I win!" :)
An argument is settled only when both parties agree that it is.

If it were really true that "Civil marriage is a legally binding contract between consenting adults which endues them with a boatload of rights and responsibilities regarding each other", then divorce by mutual consent should be legal in all states, but it is not. That means that the State is the third party to that contract.

Whether the State should also be a third party in a "gay marriage" is something not all gays would accept. Suppose for instance that the Catholic Church allowed gay marriage in Italy but then insisted that no divorce is possible (as has been the case for heterosexuals) gays might not be all of them so happy.

When you insist on the right to gay marriage you are like a person who goes into a restaurant and orders a meal without first looking at the menu.

You seem to think if a group of Muslims wanted to rename themselves "Latter day Jews" or whatever, some court would intervene. On what basis? Groups can call themselves anything they want to. Perhaps you've heard of the Jews for Jesus? Lots of Jews are offended by this very real group, but no court has ever stepped in to force a name-chage on them.
......
Just deal with it. Is there some reason you feel you can't do that?
Posted by: gimpi
-------------
Certasinly. And I think if gays were in a civil relationship (say legally recognized domestic partners) but called themselves "married", no court would block that. Their friends might go along with that terminology.

But going back to your example of Jews for Jesus, suppose they laid claim to the property of some synagogue on the grounds that they were Jews, the court would not give them control of that property. The court would say, "Fine, you call yourself Jews but you are not entitled to control this synagogue."

As for my "dealing with that" it is not actually some kind of emotional problem of mine. Rather I worry that if laws which are intended for heterosexuals are applied to gays there may often be a mis-match.

Conversely, if both kinds of relationships are called marriage, then gays may push for changes in marriage laws which make sense for them, do not make sense for heterosexuals, but would apply to both groups if enacted.

Actually I was thinking that in fact in India, the marriage laws for Muslims are different from the laws for other communities. Alimony is not permitted under Muslim law.

If the US had more than one kind of marriage, such problems could be solved. Gays (male), Lesbians, Mormons, and Muslims could all have their own marriage laws which would (within reason) be autonomous.

PeterHuff,

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Won't we?

Fortunately, our country is changing fast. Gay marriage or unions are already available in many States and are almost certain to come to many more in the near future. Did you hear the news, Wisconsin just fell!

Equal rights can be slowed but they can't be stopped because those of us who support marriage equality have much more to gain than you have to lose. That's why we have the strength and determination to win this fight and make no mistake about it, we are winning. Just like the end of slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage, marriage equality is inevitable but you already know that, don't you?

Hi Freestinker,

FS: "PeterHuff wrote,
"So I'm asking what is your ultimate reference point in determining what marriage "should" be? Is it subjective, and in that case, what makes it the standard that we "should" base marriage on?"

FS: "Civil marriage law should treat all persons equally, regardless of gender"

First point is, it does. All have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Every person, regardless of gender, has that right.

Second point, why "should" it treat all people equally? If a person wants to civilly marry a goat, or his sister, or a five year old child if the child agrees, or have ten wives, "should" we let him? Does he not have an equal right? If a person wants to do whatever he likes, as long as he is not hurting anyone, in as much as he or we understands what constitutes "hurting", should we not give him the equal right?

FS: "Same-sex couples should share all of the legal protections that a civil marriage contract confers. I see no reason why the gender of the spouses should make any difference in the eyes of the law.
My opinion is based on the Golden Rule and on the Constitution."

The Golden Rule is based on doing what is good for others, not whatever you decide "good" is. A masochist or sadist has a different concept of what good is from mine. So who is right? All you're advocating is your set of beliefs. You want to dictate what good is, what civil law "should" be. Other's values are contrary to yours.

The Golden Rule is based on an ultimate standard or else it is just preference pitted against preference and therefore nothing "good" about it.

FS: "Whether or not those standards are "subjective" or not is, of course, a matter of opinion but even if they are subjective, it doesn't make them wrong."

If it is a matter of opinion, whose and why are they right? There is no such thing as right or wrong if there is no ultimate, objective, absolute reference, because why is your opinion right over mine - because you say it is?

In other words, what you are saying is that whoever is in power makes the laws, period. When they change or go flip-flop it is just one person, or one group deciding for another what will be. There is no "should" about it, for should applies an objective standard. What you feel, "a matter of opinion" as you put it, is not objective unless it complies to an objective standard. Objective is without bias; objective sees every side of the issue; objective knows what good is, it does not guess. God is objective.

PP: "Same goes for *you,* too, Mr. Peter Huff: do you *really* think LBGT people were put on this Lady's green Earth for the sole purpose of entertaining your oh-so-obsessive 'disapproval?'"

You want legislated what is right in your eyes. If every interest group fought for their "rights" marriage would, I'm sure, also include polygamy, beastiality, and incest, to name a few. Where do we draw the line? Do you feel that these are rights too?

PP: "This is a matter of *Justice.* If between you and your God, you can't handle that, that's *your* problem."

Whose justice are we talking about? First establish your measure, your final reference for what it is and why it should be so. You throw these terms about but you need to define them and who decides they are just?

Why is abortion a woman's "right" to choose when fifty years ago it was considered murder? Was it right then or is it right now? Was it both "right" when it was wrong then and "right" when it is right now? Or was it wrong then as well as now? Heads you win and tails you also win?

PP: "Yes. You hurt us. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, saying it over and over again like the results of hurting others will ever be difference is *beyond* stupid."

Your arguing for validity in your position and yet you can't justify it, you can't prove it to be so. Why would you want to believe something that you cannot justify as "good?" That is blind faith.

Good" needs an absolute standard or else anything can be called "good" over the smoking barrel of a gun or twisting another's arm. I'm asking for that objective measure.

PP: "Enough. You have no right or standing."

Where does "right" come from? I under stand for I stand under God's revelation. That is a firm standing. What is your standing measured by? How do you gauge it as true and good?

PP: "Enough."

So you want to dictate without a final reference. It's what you say that matters. Why?

Hi PaganPlace,

PP: "We're tired. Your rationales for hurting us are nothing new.They were tiresome before you had an Internet to repeat them on."

You have been on these forums longer than I have.

I'm not trying to hurt you, but you push your ideas and your freedom of speech as though they are sound and "good" values. I'm going to the next level and asking what makes your standard, your values, so good and right and sound and true? What makes any subjective opinion right? What I'm saying is that it is all senseless unless looked at from the Christian perspective, because without an objective standard, a final reference point, a universal measure, it is all meaningless, dust in the wind.

But you don't think it is meaningless, so you keep borrowing from the Christian world view where meaning can be made sense of, all the while arguing against it, that things do ultimately matter in the long run. If I'm mistaken what is the point of you arguing at all? Unless you can show an objective, omniscient standard, it all boils down to subjective preference, yours verses mine, verse President Obama's, but that is not how you live. You live as though what you believe is right, therefore what I believe is wrong. I'm just showing you that you have no justification, no foundation for doing so.

So even though you hostilely reject the Christian God you keep showing that it is the only way that anything can be made sense of.

PP: "Stop insulting everyone's intelligence trying to justify continuing to hurt real people over silly abstractions, as if even the God of *you* conception really thinks it's worth being all that wound up about."

I'm not wound up, you are. I'm not trying to hurt you, it is to give your head a shake, to make you think about what you are saying and try to point you to what ultimately matters. You talk about justice, but why is your subjective measure of justice the ultimate barometer.

If you could show me how it is then your ideas would be a lot more plausible.

Suppose some court decided that Muslims have the right to call themselves Jews. Perhaps some liberal Jews might say, "That is fine with us." But it may not be quite so fine for Orthodox Jews or even for some conservative ones. It should be a decision made by the entire Jewish community and not just by some liberal Jews for whom, perhaps, "Anything goes."
posted by rohitcuny

rohitcuny,

You seem to think if a group of Muslims wanted to rename themselves "Latter day Jews" or whatever, some court would intervene. On what basis? Groups can call themselves anything they want to. Perhaps you've heard of the Jews for Jesus? Lots of Jews are offended by this very real group, but no court has ever stepped in to force a name-chage on them.

By the way, I used the "Latter Day" prefix in my imaginary Muslim group for a reason. I know many Evangelical Christians don't consider Mormans Christians. I know the Mormans profoundly disagree. The Mormans can still call themselves Christian, and the Evangelicals just have to deal with it. No court will ever intervene in this naming either, nor should it.

I suggest we get over the fixation on names, and let people call their relationships whatever they choose to. If the name "marriage" makes someone feel like their relationship is being treated with greater diginity, how does that harm anyone? Just deal with it. Is there some reason you feel you can't do that?

ROHITCUNY wrote:
""Baseless"? Wow! As far as I know, black people reproduce in the usual manner. And many black couples have been together for a very long time."

-----

And the same is true for gays. They can also reproduce in the usual manner and have also been together for a very long time. Besides, if sexual reproduction was the only issue, then all sterile couples should be denied a marriage license and if the length of the relationship was so important, then all marriage licenses should require the same proof ... but gender, like race is completely irrelevant to all those cases anyway.

=========

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"So there are practical problems here and they will be made worse if gays and heteros are "forced to wear the same size shirts". Marriage is not just a freedom! Ask someone trying to get divorced and you will soon realize that it is much closer to slavery than to freedom."

-----

If there are any practical problems with marriage equality, you haven't listed any of them yet, much less described how marriage equality would make them any worse.

So far, to borrow a phrase, you're just shooting blanks my friend.

I am curious though, why is it that you are so adamant about prohibiting marriage equality, when nothing about it affects you in the least? Exactly what do you have to lose by giving equal rights to others?

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"The State of New York allowed divorce at one time for only two reasons, abuse and adultery. Even now, the law gives as a possible reason for divorce, "The confinement of the defendant in prison for a period of three or more consecutive years after the marriage of plaintiff and defendant." And that means that if your wife or husband is in prison for two years you cannot use that as a reason to file for divorce in New York.
Maybe the law should change, but it should change in accordance with what makes sense for heterosexuals.
Right now, if two gays were to "marry" in New York and one went to prison for two years, the other would not be entitled to divorce. Maybe that is not so wise. Gay relationships TEND to be less permanent."
----------
Maybe the law should change but whatever the law is, why shouldn't it apply to everyone equally, regardless of gender? To see how wrong that is just substitute black for gay and you'll see what I mean ... so the law should be different for blacks too, since black relationships TEND to be less permanent than whites. See how baseless that argument is?
Posted by freestinker
-----------------
"Baseless"? Wow! As far as I know, black people reproduce in the usual manner. And many black couples have been together for a very long time.

As I have said umpteen times, laws are designed for the typical situation. No legislature would get away with having different laws for blacks and whites because whites are treated as "the typical situation." Many African and Muslim countries allow polygamy, but it is banned in the US because it has not been the custom among White Christians. So US Muslims have to go by Christian conventions which are presumed to be "right".

I personally favour custom made marriages with each couple making its own choices. But there are two difficulties.

Some accompaniments to marriage involve the government heavily. For instance the ability to file a joint tax return. Or the ability to sponsor a marital partner for citizenship. So the government needs to have a say when a relationship is "serious enough" to justify such considerations.

The other thing is that legislatures and courts do not like people to design their own marriages. Quite often a judge will overturn a pre-nup made in good faith.

So there are practical problems here and they will be made worse if gays and heteros are "forced to wear the same size shirts". Marriage is not just a freedom! Ask someone trying to get divorced and you will soon realize that it is much closer to slavery than to freedom.

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"The State of New York allowed divorce at one time for only two reasons, abuse and adultery. Even now, the law gives as a possible reason for divorce, "The confinement of the defendant in prison for a period of three or more consecutive years after the marriage of plaintiff and defendant." And that means that if your wife or husband is in prison for two years you cannot use that as a reason to file for divorce in New York.

Maybe the law should change, but it should change in accordance with what makes sense for heterosexuals.

Right now, if two gays were to "marry" in New York and one went to prison for two years, the other would not be entitled to divorce. Maybe that is not so wise. Gay relationships TEND to be less permanent."

----------

Maybe the law should change but whatever the law is, why shouldn't it apply to everyone equally, regardless of gender? To see how wrong that is just substitute black for gay and you'll see what I mean ... so the law should be different for blacks too, since black relationships TEND to be less permanent than whites. See how baseless that argument is?

Even it were true, it's likely explained by the fact that civil marriage is not available to most gays. If it were, their relationships would be as stable as any straight. The gender of the spouses is irrelevant to the stability of the relationship but if stability is the issue, just give gays the option of solidifying their commitment with a civil marriage contract. You have nothing to lose.

===========

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"There are lots of issues here, and "one size fits all" approach does not make sense.

Of course marriages could be custom made, but the law has often failed to honor an agreement made by "bride" and "groom" in good faith. Remember the case between Donald Trump and Ivana Trump where she challenged a pre-nup?

.......

Personally I see nothing wrong in itself with a "drive in" marriage which can be dissolved with a month's notice.

--------------

One "size" (law) seems to fit all opposite-sex couples right now, even though their individual circumstances often vary greatly. And the legal problems with pre-nups are exactly the same male or female. It's just a legal contract between two consenting adults and their gender is not relevant to the terms of the contract.

=============

ROHITCUNY wrote,
"But the two aspects of children and the need for emotional security make this option unrealistic. Gays may also want emotional security, but the issue of children is of necessity different, different even for lesbians and male gays."

------

Please explain how is the legal issues of same-sex couples with children is any different for opposite-sex couples? From a legal point of view, I can't think of any meaningful differences. All the possible problems can (and do) occur in both kinds of marriage.

The question is not only how the law would differ but why the law should differ? You have explained how the law could differ but you have failed to explain why the law should differ.
For instance, why shouldn't mutual consent be the standard for all couples? Why should the standard, whatever it is be different?
There are complicating factors in many divorces and inheritance cases and the gender of the spouses doesn't make things any different. A simple Will would solve the dilemma you describe above regardless of the gender or the family history of the spouses. Posted by: Freestinker |
------------
My point is that the primary concern of law is not God or Religions, nor does the constitution decide in full what the law should be.

The State of New York allowed divorce at one time for only two reasons, abuse and adultery. Even now, the law gives as a possible reason for divorce, "The confinement of the defendant in prison for a period of three or more consecutive years after the marriage of plaintiff and defendant." And that means that if your wife or hysband is in prison for two years you cannot use that as a reason to file for divorce in New York.

Maybe the law should change, but it should change in accordance with what makes sense for heterosexuals. Right now, if two gays were to "marry" in New York and one went to prison for two years, the other would not be entitled to divorce. Maybe that is not so wise. Gay relationships TEND to be less permanent.

There are lots of issues here, and "one size fits all" approach does not make sense.

Of course marriages could be custom made, but the law has often failed to honor an agreement made by "bride" and "groom" in good faith. Remember the case between Donald Trump and Ivana Trump where she challenged a pre-nup?

.......

Personally I see nothing wrong in itself with a "drive in" marriage which can be dissolved with a month's notice.

But the two aspects of children and the need for emotional security make this option unrealistic. Gays may also want emotional security, but the issue of children is of necessity different, different even for lesbians and male gays.

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"To explain just a bit more. There are states where the only grounds for divorce are abuse and adultery. But the law could say that for gay couples, mutual consent should be enough, or even, divorce with only one party wanting it, with a year's notice. Laws relating to alimony (if any) could be different. A gay woman may want to marry another gay woman but still prefer to leave her property to her siblings.
Suppose a gay woman, Pat, marries another gay woman, say Eliza. After (or even before) they are "married" Pat has a child Debby by AI. Then Pat dies. Under current law, if we regard the relationship of Pat and Eliza as marriage, then Eliza inherits ALL of the property of Pat and Debra has no legal claim. Would Pat have wanted this?
These are all real questions. We cannot blithely say "Equal protection is the only way to go" because we are not talking about "protection". The word protection is being misused when what we are talking about is inheritance or divorce.

==============

The question is not only how the law would differ but why the law should differ? You have explained how the law could differ but you have failed to explain why the law should differ.

For instance, why shouldn't mutual consent be the standard for all couples? Why should the standard, whatever it is be different?

There are complicating factors in many divorces and inheritance cases and the gender of the spouses doesn't make things any different. A simple Will would solve the dilemma you describe above regardless of the gender or the family history of the spouses.

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"Excuse me, but you asked me to tell you what I think are the differences in law which I would suggest. And I did explain. I only accepted the challenge to explain what I thought, and not a challenge to have you agree with me.

You are too committed to gay marriage and you are not actually able to hear other voices. That is fine, but since that is the way it is, your challenge was a fake one.

An honest challenge would say, "I asked you to explain yourself, you have done so. So thanks." And not a reiteration of your dogmas."

---------

ROHITCUNY,

I'm sorry. I thought we were having a conversation ... you know the kind where we exchange ideas and then comment on them and vice versa.

I've simply asked you explain the details of your rather vague proposal.

If your proposal is serious, you don't need to question my honesty, all you have to do is address my specific questions about your proposal.

Let's try again. Let's just take one example at a time to keep it simple.

You wrote:

"Yes, there are various differences. For instance I think divorce should be easier for gay couples."

-------

Exactly how would the law make divorce easier for opposite-sex couples and why should it be easier?

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"Yes, there are various differences. For instance I think divorce should be easier for gay couples."
-------
Exactly how would the law make divorce easier for opposite-sex couples and why should it be easier?
================
ROHITCUNY wrote:
"Also, I do not see the justification for community property laws."
-------
Why not? What is the difference?
=========
Equal protection is the only way to go.
Posted by: Freestinker
----------
To explain just a bit more. There are states where the only grounds for divorce are abuse and adultery. But the law could say that for gay couples, mutual consent should be enough, or even, divorce with only one party wanting it, with a year's notice. Laws relating to alimony (if any) could be different. A gay woman may want to marry another gay woman but still prefer to leave her property to her siblings.

Suppose a gay woman, Pat, marries another gay woman, say Eliza. After (or even before) they are "married" Pat has a child Debby by AI. Then Pat dies. Under current law, if we regard the relationship of Pat and Eliza as marriage, then Eliza inherits ALL of the property of Pat and Debra has no legal claim. Would Pat have wanted this?

These are all real questions. We cannot blithely say "Equal protection is the only way to go" because we are not talking about "protection". The word protection is being misused when what we are talking about is inheritance or divorce.

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"Yes, there are various differences. For instance I think divorce should be easier for gay couples."
-------
Exactly how would the law make divorce easier for opposite-sex couples and why should it be easier?
================
ROHITCUNY wrote:
"Also, I do not see the justification for community property laws."
-------
Why not? What is the difference?
=========
Equal protection is the only way to go.
Posted by: Freestinker
---------
Excuse me, but you asked me to tell you what I think are the differences in law which I would suggest. And I did explain. I only accepted the challenge to explain what I thought, and not a challenge to have you agree with me.

You are too committed to gay marriage and you are not actually able to hear other voices. That is fine, but since that is the way it is, your challenge was a fake one.

An honest challenge would say, "I asked you to explain yourself, you have done so. So thanks." And not a reiteration of your dogmas.

PeterHuff wrote:
"So I'm asking what is your ultimate reference point in determining what marriage "should" be? Is it subjective, and in that case, what makes it the standard that we "should" base marriage on? Can you answer these questions? ... First give me a plausible answer as to why your subjective opinion is VALID? Why is your opinion the opinion we should all listen to and if it is not then is there any "right" in your opinion? ... Do you have a good enough reason or any reason other than your personal preference why what you believe is "right" and "good?""

---------

Civil marriage law should treat all persons equally, regardless of gender. Same-sex couples should share all of the legal protections that a civil marriage contract confers. I see no reason why the gender of the spouses should make any difference in the eyes of the law.

My opinion is based on the Golden Rule and on the Constitution. The Golden Rule instructs me to treat others as I would have them treat me and I would not want the law to exclude me from civil marriage to the one I love just because of my gender. The Constitution promises equal protection under the law, regardless of gender so again, it is wrong for the law to exclude anyone from equal protection on the basis of their gender. Whether or not those standards are "subjective" or not is, of course, a matter of opinion but even if they are subjective, it doesn't make them wrong.

I also think individual freedom of conscience is good and the more freedom of conscience the better. That is why I oppose any government intervention on matters of religious opinion. When the legal protections of a civil marriage contract are based on a strictly religious opinion, especially when they conform to just one particular religious opinion at the exclusion of others, that is theocracy in action. The ironic thing for those who favor a theocratic rule of law, is that setting such a precedent ensures that they will inevitably be forced by law to live by someone else's religious opinion. It's a rather vicious circle so-to-speak. Thank goodness the Founders recognized this danger and created a Constitution that largely protects us from it.

So the best solution is to respect the Constitution and separate religion and government by deleting the word "marriage" from the law completely. The law should honor equal protection and the Golden Rule by providing civil unions for all, regardless of gender and the question of "marriage" should be decided by each individual or church based on their religious freedom of conscience.

PeterHuff wrote:
"Because God also ordained that we as Christians submit to the governing authorities, but also to stand for what is right and when the two conflict we are to shine God's light, His clear thinking, on the problem and the evil. (Titus 3:1)
It is when a civil authority or government goes against what is good that injustice and lawlessness flourish."

-------

That doesn't explain why I don't need God to get married. And if I don't need God to get married, then technically (or legally) speaking, God hasn't sanctioned my marriage. Under our Constitution, the religious part is completely optional.

=============

PeterHuff wrote:
"The only distinction I am making at the moment is that there is an ultimate, absolute reference point to what is right and true in regards to marriage and that is God.
God has determined that a marriage is between a man and a woman. This is right; this is natural."

------

The fact that you refuse to make the distinction between religious marriage and a civil marriage contract tells me you prefer the law to conform to your religious viewpoint and exclude those who don't share your religious opinion.

You prefer Theocracy. Fair enough.

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"Yes, there are various differences. For instance I think divorce should be easier for gay couples."

-------

Exactly how would the law make divorce easier for opposite-sex couples and why should it be easier?

================

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"Also, I do not see the justification for community property laws."

-------

Why not? What is the difference?

=========

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"While it is currently the case that husbands do not have a say in abortion decisions, it could happen that future laws would give husbands a say. The justification for a lesbian to have a say in her partner's abortion decision is far weaker."

------

Why is the case weaker for same-sex couples? What if the egg from one female partner was implanted in the other? Who's child would it ereally be?

============

ROHITCUNY wrote:
"Similarly, a husband's decision to have a vasectomy often requires the wife's consent. For a gay (male) couple there is no justification for such a say on the part of the partner."

-----------

I don't think so. What law requires that? What justification does the wife have? She can always get another sperm donor. But if the wife in an opposite-sex marriage has a say, why shouldn't the spouse of an opposite-sex couple also have a say?

Your arguments are weak at best but I will give you credit for at least trying to come up with some reasonable differences in the law based solely on gender but so far, the differences you propose are legally unnecessary and as such are not very convincing at all.

Equal protection is the only way to go.

Violence towards gays tends to come from heterosexual males, who are more likely to be hostile to male gays than to female ones. There may even be fear of their own latent homosexuality in some hetero males.
**************************************************************************************
And violence toward lesbians tends to come mostly from heterosexual males as well (often in the form of rape), perhaps because their egos can't stand being rejected, or perhaps because they see them as sexual competitors for the limited pool of available women. What's your point?

Secondly it is possible for a lesbian couple to have natural born children such that one of the partners is a biological parent of the child. Gay male couples do not have that possibility.
**************************************************************************************Sure they do - IVF using sperm from one of the men, and donor eggs, and a surrogate mother. It happens more often than you think. Not to mention the gay men who marry women and father children in order to try to pass for straight.

So maybe different treatment and different laws for male and female gays make sense.
**************************************************************************************
It makes no more sense than different treatment and differnt laws for heterosexual and homosexual couples. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Civil marriage is a legally binding contract between consenting adults which endues them with a boatload of rights and responsibilities regarding each other. Those rights and responsibilities apply whether or not children are ever introduced into the equation. If it were about children, those rights and responsibilities would not take effect until such time as children were either produced or adopted, and would automatically cease when the youngest child in the family turned 18.

ROHITCUNY,

Stop making up facts on homosexuality that are patently untrue.

It is important to remember that the needs of male gays and lesbians may well be different. They form a political alliance but that is really an alliance of political convenience. Male gays and female gays don't even want to marry each other, so they are more separate from each other than whites and Blacks in modern day US.

All gays who have been imprisoned for being gay seem to have been male. Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing (both of whom I admire) are two prominent examples. It may be my ignorance but I do not know of lesbians who went to prison just for being lesbians. Violence towards gays tends to come from heterosexual males, who are more likely to be hostile to male gays than to female ones. There may even be fear of their own latent homosexuality in some hetero males.

Secondly it is possible for a lesbian couple to have natural born children such that one of the partners is a biological parent of the child. Gay male couples do not have that possibility.

It may even be possible, just at a guess, that a lesbian couple is better able to take care of children than a male gay couple. I point out that this is a guess, requires statistical study and should not be answered by the claim that everyone is equal to everyone else.

At the moment we do not know whether children brought up by gay couples do well or not. We do know that children brought up by single mothers tend to do worse than children growing up in typical hetero, two parent households. But it is conceivable that children in lesbian households receive more and better care than children in single mother households.

Children are not toys or pets. We all have the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. But when children are involved we do need to ask what is best for THEM.

Suppose California, or some other state were to pass a law that every child is entitled to a mother and that in every marriage which that state recognizes, at least one of the partners must be female.

Would it make sense? I think so. Would it pass constitutional scrutiny? I don't know. We all know that males and females are different, but America is not a country which is good at facing up to real differences. There is a presumption that wherever you recognize a difference, you are discriminating against someone.

That presumption is wrong. The US has never drafted women, and marriages of 15 year olds is not recognized. In particular, Romeo and Juliet could not have married if they had lived in the US.

So maybe different treatment and different laws for male and female gays make sense.

If I have posted here, my audience consists of two kinds of people.

A) People who are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds. I want to say to them that it is more intelligent to oppose it on rational grounds, and that gays are entitled to have an institution which addresses their needs. This was the position of Kerry and seems to be the position of Obama.

B) The second group I would like to address is "reasonable" gays, with an emphasis on "reasonable." I want to say to them that opposition to gay marriage need not be at all due to homophobia or hatred of gays but out of a desire to preserve the character of an ancient institution which has served society well and which, in contemprary America, is in deep trouble.

A compromise between gay needs and the need to protect conventional marriage is definitely possible. Those gays who sneer at that compromise are doing harm to society and setting up a conflict when we need to address other urgent concerns like health care or the financial crisis. Don't pretend that non-homophobes who oppose gay marriage are out to "hurt" gays. We are not.

Few of us here want to hurt gays. We are looking for an intelligent solution. If you are unable to see that, then you may need to wash out your eyes.

And for the record, Paganplace has repeatedly addressed me as Christian when in fact I have never been one. Reading other people's postings with care and intelligence is not her strong point.

More than that, supposed 'Christians.'

We're tired. Your rationales for hurting us are nothing new.

They were tiresome before you had an Internet to repeat them on.

But now that you have..

Stop insulting everyone's intelligence trying to justify continuing to hurt real people over silly abstractions, as if even the God of *you* conception really thinks it's worth being all that wound up about.

Yes. You hurt us. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, saying it over and over again like the results of hurting others will ever be difference is *beyond* stupid.

Enough.

You have no right or standing.

The rest of where we go from here is ....up to you.

But you've run out of noise.

Enough.

I hope you do understand, Mr. Huff, your vanity's long since gone a long ways past 'quaint' and well into 'we could have a problem, here.'

When the *boys* are starting to say, 'No more Mr. Nice Gay,' well.

Yeah, you're way past too far.

If we vex you so, a little bit of complete civil justice goes a long way toward us not giving two of em what you think. You might be more comfortable that way.

Or maybe you wouldn't know what to do with yourself.

But that's not my problem.

Capiche?

Same goes for *you,* too, Mr. Peter Huff: do you *really* think LBGT people were put on this Lady's green Earth for the sole purpose of entertaining your oh-so-obsessive 'disapproval?'

Give us a *break.*

This is a matter of *Justice.* If between you and your God, you can't handle that, that's *your* problem.

Got no use for either of you, and you ain't offering anything of use, either.

Off with you. Think what you want. You will anyway.

Now.

America.

Justice.

Remember that?

Finally for tonight HS,

PH:
Without God's revelation of Himself and the problem with mankind how do you determine anything? What is your standard, your measure, your final reference for what is "good", what is "true", or for any qualitative measure?

HS: "By observation and senses being careful to validate it objectively."

Objectively. What is objective about your validation? Are you totally without bias or prejudice? Is your world view built on an objective bases, block by block? You have already ruled out God in your suppression of the truth. You are not neutral, and neither am I. The difference is that I look to the light that can make sense of all of this. The very reason you use, you use because of the graciousness of God as you suppress Him. Your standard comes from within you; mine comes from outside of myself. You are your final arbitrator; God is my final Arbitrator.

HS: "The same way you know that Obama is the President of the United States.... The same way you know that the Earth is a lot more than 6000 years old."

You use logic. Have you ever been wrong? How do you know the earth is billions of years old? Were you there when it was formed, or do you take facts and interpret them to suit your world view? Are you running with the herd?

Without God, what started the universe, that is if you go along with the most popular theory of the day, the Big Bang, which states the universe had a beginning?

How do we get mind from matter? Ever seen a rock with consciousness? Why is there order in an universe that supposedly came about by random, chance, happenstance?

HS: "Since God has not been shown to exist, it is silly to consider what goat herders wrote centuries ago claiming to be God's revelation. Really silly."

The silly thing is presupposing this all came about by chance or as some have said, from nothing. No, again you suppress the evidence that is all around you that screams of God and that evidence starts with God and His written [the Bible] and natural revelation [the world and universe - uni - one; verse - spoken]to us.

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth...He spoke and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm." (Psalm 33:6, 9)

I mean, *seriously* Rohit, and other supposed Christians. Are you *that* turned around that you actually think whether or not you 'approve' of me or my partner is all we're going through this civil rights struggle for, that you think it's supposed to be OK for you to take away our rights to the *security* we build for each other as we can?

Other way around, sport.

We want our civil rights. For real and boring and practical reasons which have nothing to do with your scorn *or* fantasies about us.

As for your 'approval' ...we see no reason to hold that in any great regard to begin with.

We're Americans. And humans.

If you have a problem with that, *you* take it up with your God. Cause all I see of him is people like you who just so happen to find all kinds of ways to make hurting me and my family *profitable.*

You're *done* pretending to speak for 'morality' around me, sir. You're beneath contempt in this regard.

Rohit:

What?

"Yes, there are various differences. For instance I think divorce should be easier for gay couples. Also, I do not see the justification for community property laws."

Do you really think there's anything in the United States constitution that says gay couples don't have the same guaranteed and unalienable rights to be secure in our property and petition the government as any given 'Christian' who takes a mind to 'disapprove?'

My *Gods,* man, don't you realize this is one of the biggest *reasons* we're tired of you denying us equal rights?

Cause if we, after all the hardships you put us through, manage to build a life together, the very Christian relatives who made our lives miserable keep coming to clutch at the joint property of gay couples, when the blood-related partner they happened to have been related to, cast out, disowned, and hated... Dies?

Then all of a sudden they come with clutching fingers at what the couple built together?

Maybe you *like* this state of affairs, Christian, but if you think you can call it *just,* again, you have no clue about the lives you think what you 'believe' ought to so-casually rule.

ROHI: You cannot base laws for ALL couples on the basis of what YOUR father "would" say.
Posted by: rohitcuny
**************************************************************************************
The law in my state does not require me to identify my baby-daddy, even on my daughter's birth certificate.

HUMANSIMPLETON: "What it says, and it is very clear to those who actually read the Bible instead of thumping it, is that there were people who worshiped things other than their creator."

It says more than that. It says THEY suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, THEY exchanged the truth of God for a lie, THEY did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God made His point in letting them do what was not right to do and hence, the mess of humanity, each man doing what he sees fit in his own eyes. (see Judges 17:6 - same scenario)

HS: "BECAUSE OF THIS, that is because people worshiped others thing, their Creator turned them into homosexuals."

No, because of this God let them do what ought not to be done. (Romans 1:28) They are the ones doing the evil acts, not God. He does not tempt people with evil.

"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, NOR DOES HE TEMPT ANYONE; but each is tempted when, BY HIS OWN EVIL DESIRE, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, IT GIVES BIRTH TO SIN..." (James 1:13-15)

HS: "Blame your Bible, not me for what it says. I know you'd like it to say something different, but it does not."

You make judgments on what you do not understand by your suppression of the truth. (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

HS: "It says, that God turned some people into homosexuals because they did not worship him. NOTHING in Romans 1 of the Bible says they were homosexuals."

"Turned some people into homosexuals?" Where does it say this? There is a big difference between letting someone do what is evil and making them do what is evil. Refer again to James 1:13 please.

Hi HumanSimpleton,

I almost missed your posts. Since I'm working tomorrow and tomorrow comes early I will have to respond to most of your questions tomorrow evening. Thanks for posting!

HUMANSIMPLETON: "PetrHuff huffs again:
It means that because they decided to chose for themselves what was "right" and to suppress the knowledge of God He let them do what ought not be done as a lesson and also judgment against them."

HUMANSIMPLETON: "Sorry, but that is not what the Bible says. Try reading it, this time."

Here you go, with the rest of the context HS:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who SUPPRESS the truth by their wickedness, since what may be KNOWN ABOUT GOD is plain to them, because GOD HAS MADE IT PLAIN TO THEM...For although they KNEW GOD, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but THEIR THINKING BECAME FUTILE and THEIR FOOLISH HEARTS WERE DARKENED. Although they CLAIMED TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS and EXCHANGED the glory of the immortal God for images...THEREFORE, God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." (Romans 1:18-24)

What is before the therefore HumanSimpleton? What I said in other words above, namely, men suppress the knowledge and truth of God in their wickedness and denial of Him, so God "gives them over to" or "lets them do" what ought not to be done, for now. They are the ones who suppress and deny the truth of God.

"Furthermore, since THEY did not think it worthwhile to retain the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, He gave them over [i.e., He let them do] to a deprived mind, to do what ought not to be done. THEY have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity." (Romans 1:28-29)

Notice the subject and object of the sentence. They became filled...and why? Because THEY chose to ignore God's righteous standards.

"God will give to each person according to what HE HAS DONE.' To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and FOLLOW EVIL, there will be wrath and anger." (Romans 2:6-8)

Hi Freestinker,

FREESTINKER: "If God is the one who sanctions marriage, why is it that all I need to get married is a secular license from the State?"

Because God also ordained that we as Christians submit to the governing authorities, but also to stand for what is right and when the two conflict we are to shine God's light, His clear thinking, on the problem and the evil. (Titus 3:1)

It is when a civil authority or government goes against what is good that injustice and lawlessness flourish.

We in the Western world no longer have a handle on what is good. Our societies have suppressed the knowledge of their Creator, hence more and more Relativism in which nothing can be determined as certain.

FREESTINKER: "If you are suggesting that the State get out of the marriage (religion) business, then I'm with you."

The only distinction I am making at the moment is that there is an ultimate, absolute reference point to what is right and true in regards to marriage and that is God.

God has determined that a marriage is between a man and a woman. This is right; this is natural. So I'm asking what is your ultimate reference point in determining what marriage "should" be? Is it subjective, and in that case, what makes it the standard that we "should" base marriage on? Can you answer these questions?

FREESTINKER: "If you are advocating for the State to impose a religious opinion on everybody by force of law, then you are a theocrat, and I am certainly not with you."

First give me a plausible answer as to why your subjective opinion is VALID? Why is your opinion the opinion we should all listen to and if it is not then is there any "right" in your opinion?

FREESTINKER: "So which is it? Separation or Theocracy?"

Do you have a good enough reason or any reason other than your personal preference why what you believe is "right" and "good?"

ROHI: If their daughter has a child and they are asked, "Who is the father of your grandchild?" they would rather say, "John Smith, or Ravi Patel", rather than "whoever the person was, who had an orgasm in test tube number 234379."
**************************************************************************************
When my daughter has been out and about with my parents, and they introduced her as their grandchild, no one has ever asked them who her daddy was. If someone was rude enough to ask such a question, my dad is the sort who would likely respond, "Alfred E. Neuman."
Posted by: lepidopteryx
----------
You cannot base laws for ALL couples on the basis of what YOUR father "would" say.

ROHITCUNY,
You have yet to give me a single example of how a civil union contract would differ from a civil marriage contract?
You have digressed into numerous other subjects but the central question remains unanswered!
I'll give you yet another try before I conclude that you don't really advocate any distinction between the two legal contracts.
Exactly how will the same-sex civil union contract you propose differ from an opposite-sex civil marriage contract?
Which legal rights or benefits would be different?
Just give me one or two examples of how the two legal contracts would differ to illustrate your proposal.
Posted by: Freestinker
-------------
Yes, there are various differences. For instance I think divorce should be easier for gay couples. Also, I do not see the justification for community property laws.
While it is currently the case that husbands do not have a say in abortion decisions, it could happen that future laws would give husbands a say. The justification for a lesbian to have a say in her partner's abortion decision is far weaker. Similarly, a husband's decision to have a vasectomy often requires the wife's consent. For a gay (male) couple there is no justification for such a say on the part of the partner.

"God is the One who sanction marriage and what it should be. He has set the ultimate, absolute, objective standard, not you."

=====================

PeterHuff,

If God is the one who sanctions marriage, why is it that all I need to get married is a secular license from the State?

If you are suggesting that the State get out of the marriage (religion) business, then I'm with you.

If you are advocating for the State to impose a religious opinion on everybody by force of law, then you are a theocrat, and I am certainly not with you.

So which is it? Separation or Theocracy?

"OK, here goes. As I have said elsewhere, laws and customs pertaining to traditional marriage are based on certain prototypes. The prototype in this case is that of a heterosexual couple which will have children and raise them to be good members of society. Of course, some hetero couples do not have children and some have children but raise them badly. But the prototype is what we expect. Society's support of marriage is, on this view, support for the children. ..."

=======================

ROHITCUNY,

You have yet to give me a single example of how a civil union contract would differ from a civil marriage contract?

You have digressed into numerous other subjects but the central question remains unanswered!

I'll give you yet another try before I conclude that you don't really advocate any distinction between the two legal contracts.

Exactly how will the same-sex civil union contract you propose differ from an opposite-sex civil marriage contract?

Which legal rights or benefits would be different?

Just give me one or two examples of how the two legal contracts would differ to illustrate your proposal.

ROHI: If their daughter has a child and they are asked, "Who is the father of your grandchild?" they would rather say, "John Smith, or Ravi Patel", rather than "whoever the person was, who had an orgasm in test tube number 234379."
**************************************************************************************
When my daughter has been out and about with my parents, and they introduced her as their grandchild, no one has ever asked them who her daddy was. If someone was rude enough to ask such a question, my dad is the sort who would likely respond, "Alfred E. Neuman."

Part 2 to HumanSimpleton,

HS: "Gays are not asking that God give them a marriage certificate. They are asking the government to do so."

The ultimate question is what is "right" and who determines it?

===

We do. The People of the US. Through our government.

==

==
If you have no objective standard, what gives you, as a human being the "right" to determine what "should" be for anyone else. Are you going to act as God and determine that "right" for the rest of us?
===

Through democratic means, yes. If you can get your God to show up, then we can talk.

As it stands, he is a no-show.

==
If so then don't complain when another Hitler comes along and determines that your particular race of people is inferior to his own and decides to eliminate you.

==

Now that is bordering on stupid, Peter!

Hitler came along *despite* everything else, and God did nothing.

Why? Because there is no evidence that God exists or he cares!

And Hitler came along in a Christian Nation. Called Germany.

And did exactly what is being done (albeit at NO WHERE near the discrimination): denying rights to some citizens.

===

Does he not have the same subjective "right" that you do to determine what will be? Please answer if you can make sense of this.

==
First, what is a subjective "right"?

===

And when there is no objective standard there is no "good", just one person's, one groups, or one societies preference over another. But don't call it good.

==

Why not?

==

Good needs an objective measure or reference point, a point of view that sees every aspect of every situation, and only God is omniscient and therefore objective.
==
Except that there is no evidence that there is a God. Much less that he is omniscient or objective.

Even the God of the Bible shows that it is OK to kill people (under some circumstances, like when he says so).

Which is no different that what we do today. Generally we do not kill, except under circumstances we decide it is OK.

==

HS: "It is not as if the religious get their certificate from God. They get it from the local government office."

God is the One who sanction marriage and what it should be. He has set the ultimate, absolute, objective standard, not you.
==

When God shows up, I'll believe you. Until then, I'll consider you and treat you contemptuously for the religious bigot that you are.

Or you can produce evidence that you have been authorized to deny marriage to other people.

PetrHuff huffs again:
It means that because they decided to chose for themselves what was "right" and to suppress the knowledge of God He let them do what ought not be done as a lesson and also judgment against them.
==

Sorry, but that is not what the Bible says. Try reading it, this time.

What it says is what I wrote the last time.

What it says, and it is very clear to those who actually read the Bible instead of thumping it, is that there were people who worshiped things other than their creator.

BECAUSE OF THIS, that is because people worshiped others thing, their Creator turned them into homosexuals.

Blame your Bible, not me for what it says. I know you'd like it to say something different, but it does not.

You need to pay attention to the first phrase "BECAUSE OF THIS"

Hand-waving it does not make it go away.

===

PeterHuff says

God did not give them a deprived mind; they did that themselves by deciding for themselves what "good" was outside of what it actually is and by suppressing the knowledge of God, just as you do in your anger.

===

Nice try, but it is you who failed to understand what the Bible actually says.

It says, that God turned some people into homosexuals because they did not worship him. NOTHING in Romans 1 of the Bible says they were homosexuals.

===
HS: "And yet we have Christians thumping the Bible as if it meant something."

PH:
Without God's revelation of Himself and the problem with mankind how do you determine anything? What is your standard, your measure, your final reference for what is "good", what is "true", or for any qualitative measure?
==

By observation and senses being careful to validate it objectively. The same way you know that Obama is the President of the United States. The same way you know that light travels at 186,000 mph or so in a vacuum. The same way you know that if you put your hand in the fire, it'll hurt. The same way you know that you'll die. The same way you know that there is no firmament that once supposedly held water in the sky. The same way you know that the Earth is a lot more than 6000 years old. The same way you know that somebody sodomizing you even though you may not have been sodomized against your will is bad, and perhaps it is a good idea not to sodomize someone else against their will.

Heck, animals of different species know this, why don't you?

Since God has not been shown to exist, it is silly to consider what goat herders wrote centuries ago claiming to be God's revelation.

Really silly.

And downright asinine when you do not even read what they wrote and claim something else instead. Like what you did for instance with Romans 1:28, and completely ignored "BECAUSE OF THIS" at the very beginning.

Part 2 to HumanSimpleton,

HS: "Gays are not asking that God give them a marriage certificate. They are asking the government to do so."

The ultimate question is what is "right" and who determines it? If you have no objective standard, what gives you, as a human being the "right" to determine what "should" be for anyone else. Are you going to act as God and determine that "right" for the rest of us? If so then don't complain when another Hitler comes along and determines that your particular race of people is inferior to his own and decides to eliminate you. Does he not have the same subjective "right" that you do to determine what will be? Please answer if you can make sense of this.

And when there is no objective standard there is no "good", just one person's, one groups, or one societies preference over another. But don't call it good. Good needs an objective measure or reference point, a point of view that sees every aspect of every situation, and only God is omniscient and therefore objective.

HS: "It is not as if the religious get their certificate from God. They get it from the local government office."

God is the One who sanction marriage and what it should be. He has set the ultimate, absolute, objective standard, not you.

Hello HumanSimpleton,

HS: "There were people who worshiped things other than the Creator."
HS: "And BECAUSE OF THIS, what does said Creator do?"
HS: "He gives them over to their shameful lusts."
HS: "What does that mean?"

It means that because they decided to chose for themselves what was "right" and to suppress the knowledge of God He let them do what ought not be done as a lesson and also judgment against them.

You learn that lesson when you look around you at all the evil and wrong in this world - man's inhumanity to man. It is man ignoring his Creator, suppressing the knowledge of the Creator that causes greed, immorality, self-worship, selfishness, murder, theft, adultery, the worship of false gods, and the likes.

HS: "It means, that God turned people who did not believe in him, into homosexuals. In other words, they were made homosexuals because they did not suck up to him."

God did not give them a deprived mind; they did that themselves by deciding for themselves what "good" was outside of what it actually is and by suppressing the knowledge of God, just as you do in your anger.

HS: "And yet we have Christians thumping the Bible as if it meant something."

Without God's revelation of Himself and the problem with mankind how do you determine anything? What is your standard, your measure, your final reference for what is "good", what is "true", or for any qualitative measure?

PeterHuff huffs:

==
"Would you call the Book of Romans part of the New Testament?

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchange NATURAL RELATIONS for unnatural ones. 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. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." (Romans 1:26-28)"
==

This is why people who thump the bible should be made to read it before they thump it.

Look at the start of the verses PeterHuff huffs:

"BECAUSE OF THIS"

Because of what?

Romans 1:25 provides the cause

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."

So, let us see.

There were people who worshiped things other than the Creator.

And BECAUSE OF THIS, what does said Creator do?

"He gives them over to their shameful lusts."

What does that mean?

It means, that God turned people who did not believe in him, into homosexuals. In other words, they were made homosexuals because they did not suck up to him.

LOL

Among the sillier things in the Bible, this has to be one the silliest.

And yet we have Christians thumping the Bible as if it meant something.

Gays are not asking that God give them a marriage certificate. They are asking the government to do so.

It is not as if the religious get their certificate from God. They get it from the local government office.

Hi CCNL,

CCNL: "

Hmmm, the NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries."

Would you call the Book of Romans part of the New Testament?

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchange NATURAL RELATIONS for unnatural ones. 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. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." (Romans 1:26-28)

CCNL: "So we have a Christian/Jewish/Mormon/Baha'ist/Peterhuff God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals."

He created man to have fellowship with Him and to enjoy Him forever. Man decided he would disobey God's good, pleasing and perfect will and we have been in a pickle ever since.

CCNL: "Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality."

Man is the one who is responsible in that the man chose to know the difference between good and evil and in so doing disobeyed God.

CCNL: "One might conclude from this that the Christian/Jewish/Mormon/Baha'ist/Peterhuff God would therefore approve same-sex marriages/unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed."

I do not look at life through the eyes of a Muslim of Baha'i faith since only the Judeao-Christian God is the one and only true and living God. So conclude what you will, but again I would ask what is your authority in doing so and why should it be believed? Is it ultimate, objective, absolute? If so please reveal it so that we can know it too!

And God has given us His written word and Holy Spirit that those who believe can know what is right and what is true.

POSTED BY: ROHITCUNY
If gays have been smart enough to invent a term for themselves, they should be able to come up with a word for the type of legally recognized relationships they want. Surely that is the way to go. Then most Americans will be on their team.
==

The word is marriage.

Your analogy of claiming that a temple is different from a church is more broken than the financial system of Iceland.

1. Jews have temples. So do Hindus. Can either side claim that they own the rights to "temple"?

2. The BoR does not grant the right to go to or claim as your own a church or temple. It grants you freedom of and from religion.

Marriage is a privilege granted to two individuals. There are some 1049 rights at the federal level (and some 300 more in California) that are granted by this.

Gay marriage is the fight to have those same rights for any two individuals.

It is OK to oppose gay marriage. Just as it was OK to oppose rights for women to vote.

I strongly suspect that you oppose it because you do not yet know that it is not mandatory for you.

--- DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

--- DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

--- DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

---

Prof. GATES Must GO To Jail For almost (Conspiring) insighting a National (RACE BASED)RIOT! The TERRORISTS & CO., are LOVE-in THIS!

---
......___________________......
...........||.......||........||.......||
...........||.......||.., , ,.||.......||
...........||......(||../|/(\.||/......||
...........||.......||.._'_ .,||......||
...........||.......||..o o..||.......||
...........||......(||...m...||)......||
...........||.......||...=....||.......||
...........||.......||.\___/||.......||
...........||.___||..).,.(..||___.||
......... /||..--...||.-\_/-.||..---,.||\
........./.||.--,_,||____.||.._--||..\
..........(||)RACE-GATES(.||)
............|"""""""""""""""""""""|.
....|ACTS AGAINST HUMANITY|
......|A-CRYIN-LYING-SHAME|.

-- W O W! The "mistake" (election) is leaching-out Through that African/American GATES like "A FREUDIAN SLIP OF GENUINE PROPHECY"!?? Soo,

"A White Crackers ain't gota Chance
against a Black Cracker" anymore?

What happened to the "Planet of The Apes"?

Mr. OBAMA. Please, like an EX-Friend, Distance yourself from Mr. "Race-GATES", like ye didth with REVrend/Brother Mr. Wrong, ooopps Meant Rev. Jeramiah (Bull-Frog) Mr. Wright!

Let me compare sexual preference with religion. There are two million Hindu Americans in the US. They do not go to church, they go to Hindu temples. There are comparable numbers of Muslims and Buddhists, and they also do not go to church but to mosques or to a temple. All of these religions claim the civil right to a tax free status but none of them insists that their places of worship be called churches. Hindus are quite happy to go to a temple and do not want to go to church.

Nor do they insist that "because of equality" Hindu places of worship should be called churches.

Gays can have the civil rights which hetero married people currently have. But why do they want to CALL their relationships marriage? Muslims do not want to call their places of worship churches - they have too much self respect for that.

Why don't gays show more self respect? Of course there has been discrimination against gays. But there has also been discrimination against Muslims. If you want self respect you have to respect your own way and your own customs.

Gays have been smart enough to invent a word to describe themselves namely "gay".

[However, LGBT sounds too much like alphabet soup.]

If gays have been smart enough to invent a term for themselves, they should be able to come up with a word for the type of legally recognized relationships they want. Surely that is the way to go. Then most Americans will be on their team.

--- DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

--- DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

--- DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

---

Prof. GATES Must GO To Jail For almost (Conspiring) insighting a National (RACE BASED)RIOT! The TERRORISTS & CO., are LOVE-in THIS!

---
......___________________......
...........||.......||........||.......||
...........||.......||.., , ,.||.......||
...........||......(||../|/(\.||/......||
...........||.......||.._'_ .,||......||
...........||.......||..o o..||.......||
...........||......(||...m...||)......||
...........||.......||...=....||.......||
...........||.......||.\___/||.......||
...........||.___||..).,.(..||___.||
......... /||..--...||.-\_/-.||..---,.||\
........./.||.--,_,||____.||.._--||..\
..........(||)RACE-GATES(.||)
.......|"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|.
.......|ACTS AGAINST HUMANITY|
.........|A-CRYIN-LYING-SHAME|.

-- W O W! The "mistake" (election) is leaching-out Through the African/Americano like "A FREUDIAN SLIP OF GENUINE PROPHECY"!?? Soo,

"A White Crackers ain't gota Chance
against a Black Cracker" anymore?

What happened to the "Planet of The Apes"?

The gay "obsession" with the word marriage is not because of its romantic connotations. It's because of ts LEGAL ramifications.
There is no good reason for same-sex couples to have to go to a lawyer and pay massive legal fees to have umpteen separate documents drawn up in order to give them such rights as power of attorney, inheritance of property and child custody in the event of the other's death, etc.
Posted by: lepidopteryx
----------
This is a completely valid point and should be addressed by a federal bill legalizing gay civil unions. The point in not calling it marriage is that if at some stage we found (we probably already do) that in SOME ways, different laws are needed for the two kinds of relationships, then that could be easily accomodated.

Note that about two thirds of Americans support civil unions for gays and only one third support gay marriage. By pushing for gay marriage, gays are setting the country up for a big fight which is quite unnecessary.

Lepidopteryx, I have tried quite hard to respond to your concerns. Please try and understand mine. The issue of gays wanting certain rights, and the issue of their wanting these rights under the rubric of current laws desgined for heterosexuals, these are different issues.

I agree with the first and not with the second.

And also, fond as you are of your friend Paganplace, I hope you will agree that she should not insult people in the process of expressing her own views. She is entitled to her views, and others are entitled to theirs. The Washington Post explicitly asks people not to be abusive. If she wants to use their services then she has to accept their rules, just as I do.

You have been relatively civil, but you have to acknowledge, even though she is your friend, that she has not been civil.

ROHI:
To be honest, I wouldn't want my son to marry one either - would you? :)
I think you still do not understand my point of view. I am not opposing gay relationships. I just do not want them to be called marriages because they are not marriages - they are something new.
Gays are welcome to have long term relationships, but they should not confuse the issue by calling them marriages.
I suspect that the gay obsession with the word "marriage" is caused by the romantic and traditional associations which the word carries. But those associations are based on long history, of stories like those of Romeo and Juliet or Leila and Majnun. These stories are inherently heterosexual.
If gays want romantic associations, they are welcome to create their own.
**************************************************************************************
The gay "obsession" with the word marriage is not because of its romantic connotations. It's because of ts LEGAL ramifications.
There is no good reason for same-sex couples to have to go to a lawyer and pay massive legal fees to have umpteen separate documents drawn up in order to give them such rights as power of attorney, inheritance of property and child custody in the event of the other's death, etc. If my husband and I had to have a separate legal document for each of the rights that came with our marriage license, we couldn't afford it.
Our house is in my name, but if I die, he automatically inherits it because we are married. If we had children, and one of us died, the other would automatically retain custody. I have two lesbian friends who have two children. Both women were impregnated by AI, using the eggs of one of them. Because they cannot get joint health insurance coverage, they were not able to give birth in the same hospital - their respective health care plans do not use the same hospitals. If the one who is the biological mother of the children should die, the children's other mother is not guaranteed custody. In this state, she cannot adopt the children because they already have a legal mother. Even with child custody specified in the bioloical mother's will, it can be over-ridden and the children made wards of the state in the event of the bioloical mother's death. Neither can inherit the other's Social Security benefits.
How is that right?

As for my daughter, I want her to find someone with whom she is happy. I don't care what that person's anatomy is like. If they decide to make their arrangement permanent, I would want them to be able to offer each other such things as survivior benefits, health coverage, etc.

I get you, Rohi. You have nothing agaisnt lesbians; you just wouldn't want your daughter to marry one.
Posted by: lepidopteryx
------------
To be honest, I wouldn't want my son to marry one either - would you? :)

I think you still do not understand my point of view. I am not opposing gay relationships. I just do not want them to be called marriages because they are not marriages - they are something new.

Gays are welcome to have long term relationships, but they should not confuse the issue by calling them marriages.

I suspect that the gay obsession with the word "marriage" is caused by the romantic and traditional associations which the word carries. But those associations are based on long history, of stories like those of Romeo and Juliet or Leila and Majnun. These stories are inherently heterosexual.

If gays want romantic associations, they are welcome to create their own.

I get you, Rohi. You have nothing agaisnt lesbians; you just wouldn't want your daughter to marry one.
Posted by: lepidopteryx
---------------
Actually my daughter is already married, thank you.

But I can see why a parent would prefer their daughter to be in a heterosexual marriage. If their daughter has a child and they are asked, "Who is the father of your grandchild?" they would rather say, "John Smith, or Ravi Patel", rather than "whoever the person was, who had an orgasm in test tube number 234379."

If the grandchild has no father to speak of and two "mothers", they would have to deal with that - but I can perfectly understand that it would not be the first choice.

In other words, a gay relationship is not "the same as" a conventional heterosexual marriage.

You, being so pro gay, might say that two mothers are better than a mother and a father. But even then you could hardly say that it is "the same." It isn't.

Hmmm, the NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian/Jewish/Mormon/Baha'ist/Peterhuff God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality. One might conclude from this that the Christian/Jewish/Mormon/Baha'ist/Peterhuff God would therefore approve same-sex marriages/unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

And just a reminder, reiteration is a fundamental learning method.

"GOD has everything to do with marriage. GOD created marriage!"

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. He is necessary to make sense of anything!

KPHARMER: "So, do you advocate laws denying marriage licenses to atheists or agnostics?"

Not at all, just for some special interest group to decide for themselves what "should" or "shouldn't" be "right."

Why "should" a special interest group decides what our "rights" should be?

When you talk of "ought" or "should" there is no way to make sense of it without God and an ultimate, objective, absolute standard. So when a stand is pushed that is outside God's law or outside what He has ordained as the suitable standard, where do you draw the line - at pure anarchy, where everyone does what he/she seems fit in their own eyes?

In other words, when the definition of marriage is redefined, where does it stop, at polygamy, incest, marriage between a human and an animal, and who determines what is "right"?

KPHARMER: "I do not believe in your god. There is no reason whatsoever why my life should be controlled by a theology to which I object."

In other words you want to make the rules. You want to call the shots. That is what wars are fought over, a difference of opinions, but don't talk about "reason" either because without belief in the one true and living God anything goes. There is no right.

KPHARMER: "Your church can be as restrictive as it wishes when deciding whose unions to acknowledge. It does not, however, have a legitimate basis for applying those restrictions to people who reject the religious dogma on which they are based."

God is the ONLY legitimate bases for applying any restrictions. Just because you reject Him does not make His position any less objective or any less right.

WELTON GAdDY: "I seek to be involved in attempts to find common ground on which the people in our nation can meet and, through honest, civil debate, find a just solution to a challenge that is splintering our nation and hurting many of its citizens."

To talk about justice as you do brings to mind the question of how does one determine "justice" apart from God? THERE IS NONE. It is just ones personal preference pitted against another's personal preference.

Justice requires an objective standard or measure. Personal opinion/preference is one persons whim pitted against another's, and what is enforced is the whim that can exert the most force, whether that be political, emotional/charismatic or physical.

I get you, Rohi. You have nothing agaisnt lesbians; you just wouldn't want your daughter to marry one.

You make the claim that marriage is about providing a stable environment for the bringing up of children, and in the same breath tell her that she has no right to marry the person with whom she has been bringing up a child in a stable environment, based solely on the fact that both she and the child's other parent have a vagina. Did you expect her to just nod and say, "Well, gee, I guess I better just go find someone with a penis then. Thank you so much for setting me straight."
Posted by: lepidopteryx |
----------
I have to say that you two (pp and you) are hardly the best friends of the LGBT movement. I have repeatedly said that gays and gay relationships have the right to be respected by society and law. I immediately condemned the shooting in Israel. And yet the two of you are treating me like an enemy.

I thought that making lists of enemies was a game which Dick Cheney and Richard Nixon played. If you are going to insult people who agree with you 90% simply because they do not agree about the last 10%, you are not going to have many allies, are you?

You make the claim that marriage is about providing a stable environment for the bringing up of children, and in the same breath tell her that she has no right to marry the person with whom she has been bringing up a child in a stable environment, based solely on the fact that both she and the child's other parent have a vagina. Did you expect her to just nod and say, "Well, gee, I guess I better just go find someone with a penis then. Thank you so much for setting me straight."
Posted by: lepidopteryx
================
No, she could simply say, "I don't agree with you."

The thought of simply saying, "I have a different view from yours" without any insults or abuse; such a thought did not cross her mind? It did not cross YOUR mind that it is possible to disagree without spouting insults?

ROHI:
At the same time, it is fair to ask gays to respect our feelings about protecting traditional marriage and to refrain from levelling insults at those of us who respect gays but oppose same-sex marriage. There should not be insults like the ones I have had to endure from people like Paganplace. The freedom to express one's views without being insulted is a crucial part of public discussion.
**************************************************************************************
You make the claim that marriage is about providing a stable environment for the bringing up of children, and in the same breath tell her that she has no right to marry the person with whom she has been bringing up a child in a stable environment, based solely on the fact that both she and the child's other parent have a vagina. Did you expect her to just nod and say, "Well, gee, I guess I better just go find someone with a penis then. Thank you so much for setting me straight."

(From news.yahoo.com)
JERUSALEM – Israeli police say a gunman entered a youth club for gay teens in central Tel Aviv on Saturday night and sprayed the interior with automatic rifle fire, killing three people and injuring 11.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said it was "most likely a criminal attack and not a terror attack." Tel Aviv has been a target for Palestinian militants in the past.
-------------
This is a terrible thing and quite unacceptable. But the LGBT community has to understand that many of us who oppose "same-sex marriage" do support gay rights, and are totally on their side in opposing violence against gays.

At the same time, it is fair to ask gays to respect our feelings about protecting traditional marriage and to refrain from levelling insults at those of us who respect gays but oppose same-sex marriage. There should not be insults like the ones I have had to endure from people like Paganplace. The freedom to express one's views without being insulted is a crucial part of public discussion.

ROHI: I am merely saying that marriage is an institution designed to take care of children and you should stay away from it.
**************************************************************************************
In case you weren't paying attention, Paganplace DOES have a daughter, and did the diaper thing. So what exactly should she, as a parent was not allowed to be married to her daughter's other parent, stay away from?
Posted by: lepidopteryx |
-----------
"In case you weren't paying attention" sounds a little patronizing. it isn't possible to pay attention to every little detail in the multitude of paganplace's postings. It is not possible for you and it is not possible for me.

But actually I also know of lesbian couples where one partner has a child by AI. And of course if you do have a baby then you do change diapers etc. No denying that. But the other partner, I presume is NOT the father of her daughter. So it is not clear how SHE gets legitimacy of her relationship with paganplace from the fact that paganplace has a naturally conceived daughter.

The relationship is legitimate, I do not deny that, but the fact that paganplace has a daughter from some unknown man does not make the relationship between paganplace and her partner a MARRIAGE.

Anyway, I already said that there are exceptions to every rule and we make rules based on the typical case. It is clear for instance that the sort of situation which paganplace has where she has a daughter by AI, could not happen with a gay (male) couple.

Should the law be different for gay and lesbian couples? Maybe. I do not have a crystal ball and am merely pointing out that the issues require thought rather than simplistic slogans about God or about Equality.

ROHI,
You seem to have a very limited definition of what makes a person a parent.
Parents are the people who change your diapers, sit up with you all night when you're sick, chase awy the monsters, dry your tears and tuck you back in after you've had a nightmare, hold your hand when you're learning to cross the street, make sure you have clothes on your back, food in your belly, and a roof over your head, run alongside your bicycle the first time you ride it without the training wheels, sit through endless piano and dance recitals and school plays, comfort you when your first love breaks your heart. Sometimes they come in pairs, sometimes there's only one. Sometimes they both contribute to your DNA complement, sometimes only one does, sometimes neither does. Sometimes one has dangly parts and one doesn't, sometimes both do, sometimes neither does.
Your parents are the people who raise you - their biology is negotiable.

ROHI: I am merely saying that marriage is an institution designed to take care of children and you should stay away from it.
**************************************************************************************
In case you weren't paying attention, Paganplace DOES have a daughter, and did the diaper thing. So what exactly should she, as a parent was not allowed to be married to her daughter's other parent, stay away from?

" Saying that therefore LBGT people mst be harmed" Posted by: Paganplace
--------
I never said thet LGBT people must be harmed, on the contrary they should not be harmed. Take your rage to the people who harmed you - I have nothing to do with it.

I am merely saying that marriage is an institution designed to take care of children and you should stay away from it.

Other than that you are completely entitled to have a relationship with anyone you want and live in peace.

"hat is a lot of BS. For people dying in Afghanistan or Iraq or Kenya, it IS their lives. For you, a spoiled person making fuss on the internet, it is just a "thing".

You'[re the one saying this has something to do with people wanting to marry couches. Saying that therefore LBGT people mst be harmed, then saying 'Are you threatening me' when I tell you how I respond when I tell you how *I* responded when you tried to do this crap of yours to *my* kid.

"You need to grow up and understand what real problems are like."
rohitcuny

Are you *serious, sofa-boy?

Are you *serious?*

When I tell you about *my* family, it is not a metaphor.

I was giving buttwipes like you the finger while being stomped to unconsciousness before you were likely born, son.

Then when school administrators found out about it, they'd smack me around some more for causing trouble and then the priests would find out no one would care if they 'got a little' out of it.

Don't *you* tell me what's 'real' couch-boy.

'Threat' would be if you had the stones to tell me to my face you know what's real, you pathetic little *$&$&.

I again point out that this is a mere *abstraction* to you, whereas to LBGT people and our children, it's our *lives.*
Christian.
*spit.*
Posted by: Paganplace |
========
That is a lot of BS. For people dying in Afghanistan or Iraq or Kenya, it IS their lives. For you, a spoiled person making fuss on the internet, it is just a "thing".

You need to grow up and understand what real problems are like.

"Gee! That sounded like a threat. Well, when argument fails, there is always that isn't there? I am disappointed in you"

No, that can't be a threat unless the unliikely circumstance occurs in which you are willing to find me and compare a previous marriage of mine to 'felonious carnal knowledge' of furniture to my *face* while claiming it's better for *my* child that *you* have more say in who is to be married than *we* do when directly involved.

I again point out that this is a mere *abstraction* to you, whereas to LBGT people and our children, it's our *lives.*

Christian.

*spit.*

Say it to my face.
Couch-man.
Posted by: Paganplace |
---------
Gee! That sounded like a threat. Well, when argument fails, there is always that isn't there? I am disappointed in you.

"So I think there are important differences to think about. We can of course FORCE things to be the same by fiat, but realistically we are dealing with two different sets of needs."

Actually, no, you cannot 'FORCE' anything to be anything. Trust me. It's been tired.

"Actually the US does not do so well at taking care of children."

Perhaps not.

" For instance the tax deduction for children is extremely low and there is no realistic program of daycare."

Ah, so you are indignant about taxes, and concerned not a whit that you had the same government *rip* my own daughter from my arms some years ago on the basis that 'government' isn't qualified to call me *human,* but that *you* are qualified to say my daughter is better off anywhere but near a gay marriage?

Christian?

Say it to my face.

Couch-man.

I'm out of patience.

Is there something in all this you say, Rohit, that makes it worth your God's while to be credited with severe and real injustices?

Or do you still have a sofa problem?

Exactly how will a same-sex civil union contract differ from an opposite-sex civil marriage contract?
Which legal rights or benefits would be different?
Just give me few examples to illustrate your proposal.
Posted by: Freestinker
----------
OK, here goes. As I have said elsewhere, laws and customs pertaining to traditional marriage are based on certain prototypes. The prototype in this case is that of a heterosexual couple which will have children and raise them to be good members of society. Of course, some hetero couples do not have children and some have children but raise them badly. But the prototype is what we expect. Society's support of marriage is, on this view, support for the children.

This is the main area on which thre are important differences between gays and heteros since the former cannot produce children as couples. They may adopt children, but they are unlikely to be doing the work of changing diapers, waking up many times in the night and talking endless baby talk. They MAY but it is not so likely.

So it makes perfect sense to have laws for heterosexual couples whose intention is to help children. Laws for gays might, by contrast, emphasize love, perhaps equality between the partners, I am not so sure of the need for a long term commitment enforced by law (usually by making divorce difficult and expensive). As we all know, love comes and goes, and if there are no children then where is the harm in making it easy to split up? For the same reason I do not see why community property laws should automatically apply to gays. If a gay couple WANTS to share property they may, but I see no reason why the state should force them to.

So I think there are important differences to think about. We can of course FORCE things to be the same by fiat, but realistically we are dealing with two different sets of needs.

Actually the US does not do so well at taking care of children. For instance the tax deduction for children is extremely low and there is no realistic program of daycare.

I don't know what else I can say. There are a lot of people here who think that it is just a matter of what God (aka Jehovah) does not like, and others think that it is just a matter of simple equality.

They are both wrong, but no doubt one of them will win.

Hmmm, the NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality. One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex marriages since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

And just a reminder, reiteration is a fundamental learning method.

"Hmmm, New World is really a very bad example of those from the world of probability waves!!!"

ccnl1

I'm estimating the 'probability' that you're trolling now that the actual law comes up as pretty high.

I also estimate a high probability you'll project an idea that somehow seems compulsive for you that you'll just post tracts about 'masturbation' to bury any mention of real legal and non-masturbation-oriented injustices in probate law.

Hmmm, New World is really a very bad example of those from the world of probability waves!!!

"I concur, and how awful for those who have to go through that particular gauntlet. I honestly figured in my naivete that a marriage would stand unless someone wanted it to end."

The problem is, without legal protections and acknowledgements, that 'someone' could be *anyone.* Even if their motives are transparently selfish, greedy, and malicious. Without equality, it too often ends up that *anyone* professing to be heterosexual and Christian can do *anything* to anyone else as long as they find a judge and/or jury they can feel is 'on their side.'

"This is where the 'definition of marriage' ends up, in civil and Constitutional law. Quite legally.

Posted by: Paganplace | July 31, 2009 1:35 PM

I concur, and how awful for those who have to go through that particular gauntlet. I honestly figured in my naivete that a marriage would stand unless someone wanted it to end.

You'd think I wouldn't be such a wide-eyed innocent by now, wouldn't you?

And, just to emphasize the point as regards transgendered persons, it's sadly quite legal in many places for a judge in any given case to look at that couple who fit any 'Definition of Marriage' homophobes might please, say, "I would like to discriminate against transgendered people. Look, I'm about to do it now. I rule in favor of the not-transgendered person who walked into the courtroom. Cause I don't like queers.'

Perfectly legal. Too many places.

This is where the 'definition of marriage' ends up, in civil and Constitutional law. Quite legally.

Skowronek

"For those who cite the economic and health benefits of marriage, that's great. Open up that level of legal stability, with its concommitant benefits, to ALL our citizens."

Just so.

"Anyone know how the marriage of a couple where one undergoes a sex-change is affected legally? I would bet that the answer is "not at all", unless they get divorced. Otherwise, I bet it stands. Right?"

Not really. Actually, transsexuals tend to get the worst of both worlds in all possible circumstances. For starters, where they aren't a legally-protected minority, judges, lawyers, companies, and businesspeople are basically completely entitled to obviate or override *any* contract they may feel entitled to do so, just *because* someone is a transsexual.

At times, transsexuals are forced to have their civil marriages nullified in order to receive treatment or not be treated as crossdressing people of their birth-assigned sex forevermore, even if a marriage blessed by church and recognized by state already exists.

The tendency is that even if they maintain legal status as their birth sex, that anything which goes to court overrides their marriage, inheritance rights, custody, property, whathaveyou, often on the basis that it's a 'gay' marriage, even if by 'definition' it's not.

Basically, any straight person, however hostile or unqualified, has more standing, however tenuous than a transsexual at anything a court feels like discriminating over, whatever the trans person does. Not pretty. Mostly this is over the idea of denying 'gay marriage' being grounds for anything, even if the law insists the partnership is heterosexual.

Relatively rare, but it shows up a lot of the complete Hellerian and Kafkaesque irrationality some will put us all through over a 'definition.'

I know of an amusing case of a transsexual 'reverse couple,' though, (a marriage between a female-to-male and male-to-female, respectively. Though 'gay marriage' wasn't legal there at the time, documents were produced: "See," says hubby, here are birth certificates that say she's a man and I'm a woman, and here are identity papers saying I'm a man and *she's* a woman. At no point is this a gay marriage."

Heads exploded, since to their point of view they never thought things could get *that 'gay,'* and there *had* to be a way to stop this from happening, but they had to relent. :)

C C N L:
Whoever You'ar This below is for your-Eyes only or the likes whom never seen:

.......,..... _
.........../'_/)
.........,/_ /)
........./.../
..../'_'/' '/'__'7,
.../'/ / / /" /_\
...('( ' /' ')
\........./
.'\'........ _.7'
...\.........(
....\.........\
.....\.........\

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... A.O.

"Because I do not think that the legal contracts SHOULD be the same. They may overlap in important ways but they may also be different in other relevant ways."

"To say that gay relationships are the "same as" hetero marriages is like saying that motorcyles and cars are "equal" and should be governed by the same laws. We have to give up this obsession with equality and think of what works. "

======================

ROHITCUNY,

We're not debating cars or motorcycles or sexuality or relationships here. We're just talking about the legal code. It is interesting that you prefer to change the subject to cars and sex in order to avoid my strictly legal question. I'll give the benefit of the doubt here though and let you try again ...

Exactly how will a same-sex civil union contract differ from an opposite-sex civil marriage contract?

Which legal rights or benefits would be different?

Just give me few examples to illustrate your proposal.

I just googled "rabbis for gay marriage," then "imams for gay marraige, then priests, then ministers. Rabbis and ministers there were, some Anglican priests. An isolated Catholic priest here and there. More who opposed. Imams there were none. One approved killing gay Muslims. Surely there must be imams who support the rights of gays to marry. If anyone knows of them, or can provide a link, please do so.

As for rabbis, I, a Jew (straight, married, a parent), was pleased to find this, among other articles.

From the L.A. Times

Board of rabbis opposes California anti-gay-marriage initiative
12:27 PM | September 26, 2008
Proposition 8 is stirring great fervor this election season, as supporters and opponents of gay marriage gear up for their Nov. 4 duel at the ballot box. Now comes the latest group to weigh in — the Board of Rabbis of Southern California.

The board — a collection of leaders from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements — this week declared its opposition to the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Leaders of the board said they wanted protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

“For many rabbis, it speaks on a personal level in terms of people they deal with whose lives have been impacted over the issue,” said Rabbi Stewart Vogel of Temple Aliyah in Woodland Hills and the board’s president.

The board has more than 290 members. Roughly 120 took part in Wednesday’s vote, the largest number of rabbis to weigh in on such an issue in recent memory. Vogel said Friday that 93% of those who cast votes supported the resolution.

Some voiced concern about the board wading into a political controversy, given the diversity of its members’ religious views. Vogel said the resolution did not address the sanctity of gay marriage. Instead, it urged a "no" vote on Proposition 8 so that gays and lesbians can continue to marry under civil law.

-- Duke Helfand

"But the institution of marriage hasn't traditionally been just about love. It has been about tradition, children, even religion. You could remove all these things and say that it is just about love."

*Snort*

Marriage has NOT traditionally been about love, when you strip away children and religion. It's about money and power, and increasing them both. If it were about love, why would women have been stripped of the right to their own money, property, or legal rights to their own inheritances until recently? If you want things to be just like they were 2000+ years ago, then you also have to legally allow for polygamy. That doesn't fly here, so marriage has already been changed. Hell, marital rape didn't even EXIST until 30-40 years ago, because a WIFE had no legal right to say NO, and have it stick.

Just as an example.

Synagogues, churches, temples, and mosques must be removed from the marriage business.
It is correct to say that marriage is a civil institution. Houses of worship may, if they wish, perform separate welcoming ceremonies for whomever they choose, exclude whomever they wish, once a civil marriage ceremony has been performed.

Gay marriage is not a "privilege," it is a right. The fact that gays have been denied their civil rights, marriage among them,since the founding of this nation suggests that granting them the right to marry will not be enough.

All gays who can demonstrate that as a result of having been denied the right to marry they suffered financial losses should be compensated by the government. There are other matters for which compensation is due.

In the interim, one activist group to which yours truly (straight, married, a mother) belongs has suggested that gays denied the right to marry refuse to pay state taxes. Those citizens to whom the government has refused the rights of citizenship should not pay the debts of citizens. At present, this is rhetoric. In future, who knows?

IMHO, gays have been far, far too quiet and cooperative. Speaking as a Jew, I have learned that this great nation does not respond to quiet and cooperative. We're quiet, cooperative, and scrued. Things are changing, of course, but too slowly for us Js. And we are far from alone.

Word to gays and others concerned about gay rights: Stop taking it slow. And stop, now.

"Let me point out an important difference between gay and hetero relationships."

Twaddle follows--hetero childless divorcing couples governed by the same laws as those unions with children (even if those children are aduts) and how same-sex can't possibly be governed by them too. More twaddle about children and parentage...because hetero couples can't adopt, right?

Nonsense. No one in this country is married w/o a marriage license. Plenty of people are married without stepping foot into a house of worship--thank you county courthouse!

Two consenting adults. Simple. Straightforward. Fair. Let the wedding industry boom (on). Thus far, the number of gay couples Divorcing is neither numerous, nor statistically significant. Well, it's significant to the participants, their families and their lawyers. But it doesn't hold a candle to the number of hetero couples divorcing.

For those who cite the economic and health benefits of marriage, that's great. Open up that level of legal stability, with its concommitant benefits, to ALL our citizens.

Anyone know how the marriage of a couple where one undergoes a sex-change is affected legally? I would bet that the answer is "not at all", unless they get divorced. Otherwise, I bet it stands. Right?

Let me point out an important difference between gay and hetero relationships.

Traditionally, divorce has been very difficult in many states and indeed New York laws are so strict that NY governor Rockefeller had to go to Nevada to get his divorce. Now the main practical reason for frowning on divorce is that it affects children adversely. And that means that even hetero couples with no children have had trouble getting divorces - simply bacause they are governed by the same laws.

Now a gay relationship does not create children. A child may be a biological child of one parent or an adopted child.
It cannot be a biological child of both.
There may not even be children. And that means that the issue of divorce needs to be treated differently for gay couples.

Of course, a hetero couple may also not have children, but they are governed by the same laws by which couples with children are treated. Putting gay couples in the same mix and governed by the same laws, or hetero couples governed by laws which have been enacted with gay couples in mind, this will be a nightmare.

And we can avoid the nightmare by simply admitting that the two are different.

But we in America are so obsessed with equality that we think anything must be governed by the same laws as anything else. This is madness.

Freestinker said: Please tell me though, aside from the gender of the spouses, exactly how are the civil unions you propose any different than civil marriages?
If the legal contracts are the exactly same, why should the law call them by different names?
-----------
Because I do not think that the legal contracts SHOULD be the same. They may overlap in important ways but they may also be different in other relevant ways.

It is like a motorcycle and a car. They are governed by the same traffic laws to a certain extent, neither can go through a red light. But you can hardly require seat belts on a motorcyle and you do not require helmets in a car.

To say that gay relationships are the "same as" hetero marriages is like saying that motorcyles and cars are "equal" and should be governed by the same laws. We have to give up this obsession with equality and think of what works.

I do not think that a person with an MD and a person with a law degree are "equal" in terms of treating me for an illness or giving me legal advice. In the same way, I do not think that hetero relationships and gay ones are "equal".

Freestinker said: Please tell me though, aside from the gender of the spouses, exactly how are the civil unions you propose any different than civil marriages?
If the legal contracts are the exactly same, why should the law call them by different names?
-----------
Because I do not think that the legal contracts SHOULD be the same. They may overlap in important ways but they may also be different in other relevant ways.

It is like a motorcycle and a car. They are governed by the same traffic laws to a certain extent, neither can go through a red light. But you can hardly require seat belts on a motorcyle and you do not require helmets in a car.

To say that gay relationships are the "same as" hetero marriages is like saying that motorcyles and cars are "equal" and should be governed by the same laws. We have to give up this obsession with equality and think of what works.

I do not think that a person with an MD and a person with a law degree are "equal" in terms of treating me for an illness or giving me legal advice. In the same way, I do not think that hetero relationships and gay ones are "equal".

"Gay needs should be accomodated, but to redefine marriage in order to make gays and liberals happy is a mistake."

"If gay relationships are going to be called marriage, then the word "marriage" will acquire a new meaning, and we simply do not know if that new meaning will be solid enough to support society and take care of children. "

===================

ROHITCUNY,

Marriage equality has very little to do with making gays or liberals happy and sexuality is completely irrelevant to the question. The reason civil marriage needs to be redefined (expanded) is so that the law treats all citizens equally regardless of their gender.

And please don't trot out that tired old excuse that the status quo is best for the children. The children of same-sex couples need the legal protections and security of civil marriage just as much as the children of opposite-sex couples.

The "definition of marriage" has already been changed in several States and the children of same-sex couples in those States are much are better off as a result.

"But they do not have the right to forbid more traditional heterosexual couples from being able to say, "Our relationship is different from a civil union.""

=======================

ROHITCUNY,

Expanding civil marriage laws to include same-sex couples does not forbid any opposite-sex couples from being able to say their relationship "is different" from a civil union. Freedom of speech is still the law of the land and every union is unique in some way.

Please tell me though, aside from the gender of the spouses, exactly how are the civil unions you propose any different than civil marriages?

If the legal contracts are the exactly same, why should the law call them by different names?

From what you have presented so far, there is no difference between the two other than the name you chose to call them.

But from studying ancient cultures, we can see that the idea of a sacred bond between two people is a relatively new idea. For millenniums before, human beings probably mated more like animals, simply choosing and walking away with their mates. If there were any ritual of commitment, they were probably expressed, at best, in their own private ways within the confines of their own family or community.
Given that, I believe ....Posted by: mraghavan0128
----------
But can we really redefine marriage based on your speculation as to what "probably" happened? How can you describe what is speculation on your part as a "Given"?

If we look at primitive societies or our cousins the large primates then we find that the young are taken care of by a large group, aka a troop or a tribe. This is especially so with the human young who take a very very long time to reach maturity and need a great deal of care until then. We need to make sure that any new arrangement provides the same level of care for the young as before.

Traditional marriage in a joint family until somewhat recently, and in a nuclear family more recently, has provided that care. Until we find a better way of taking care of children until they reach maturity, we should not fiddle with traditional marriage. Gay needs should be accomodated, but to redefine marriage in order to make gays and liberals happy is a mistake.

If gay relationships are going to be called marriage, then the word "marriage" will acquire a new meaning, and we simply do not know if that new meaning will be solid enough to support society and take care of children.

I more or less concur with the track of these comments with certain exception. To me, marriage is a sacred act; a sacrament, a ritual that forms an important part of all religions.

But from studying ancient cultures, we can see that the idea of a sacred bond between two people is a relatively new idea. For millenniums before, human beings probably mated more like animals, simply choosing and walking away with their mates. If there were any ritual of commitment, they were probably expressed, at best, in their own private ways within the confines of their own family or community.

Given that, I believe that no church, temple, mosque or synagogue should be given no right to define marriage on secular levels. It should limit itself only to the performance and recognition of the sacred bonds of marriage to those who believe in it. The secular level of marriage, including the granting of licenses, should be the sole responsibility of Government. This way, the Government allow for a broader definition of marriage and define it for larger segment of the population.

This

We had both a wedding in which we married ourselves to each other in the presence of our friends, family, and gods, with no representative of the state present, and no paperwork. The date of that ritual is the day we consider our wedding anniversary. Our love for each other, and our vows before human and divine witneses are what made us married.
We later went to the courthouse, bought a license, and took it to a judge for his signature. That was the day we were civilly united, and the day that we were granted the legal rights and privileges of what the stste calls marriage, but is actually a civil union.
"Civilly united" isn't an option on official forms here. Posted by: lepidopteryx
-------------
I understand that it is not an option now. But it could become an option in the future.

I do understand your concern and friendship for gays. And no doubt your own relationship is strong and based on abiding love, which I have no doubt many gays also share.

But the institution of marriage hasn't traditionally been just about love. It has been about tradition, children, even religion. You could remove all these things and say that it is just about love. But I am not sure that love can bear the burden of a long term relationship in every case.

Children need something more solid and perhaps adults do too. So I would say, give gays what they actually need, which is respect and rights, but please do not fiddle with the traditional heterosexual marriage, until we understand society and people much better than we do now.

What enabled Jews to outlast Hitler and create a successful state in the Middle East despite hostile neighbours? The feeling "We are Jews" was a large part of it. We could have said, "It is just a word and Jews are no different from anyone else" and perhaps we would be right. But without that word, Jews might not have survived. The word "marriage" and all the traditional associations with it has been a large part of why marriages in traditional societies last so long.

The divorce rate in the US is 50%. In India it is 1.1% And this is not because Americans do not love each other. But America no longer supports marriage as it once did, and India still does (for the most part).

So I would say, leave things be and don't change what does not need to change.

ROHITCUNY:So let me suggest that we have civil unions for everyone, and those hetero-sexuals who see no difference, can also choose to change the name of their relationship from "married" to "civilly united." If both partners agree, they can just go to a registrar and change their official status from "married" to "united in a civil union."
**************************************************************************************
We had both a wedding in which we married ourselves to each other in the presence of our friends, family, and gods, with no representative of the state present, and no paperwork. The date of that ritual is the day we consider our wedding anniversary. Our love for each other, and our vows before human and divine witneses are what made us married.
We later went to the courthouse, bought a license, and took it to a judge for his signature. That was the day we were civilly united, and the day that we were granted the legal rights and privileges of what the stste calls marriage, but is actually a civil union.
"Civilly united" isn't an option on official forms here.

The gender of the spouses is completely irrelevant to the terms of the current "civil marriage" legal contract so why should the exact same contract for same-sex couples be given a different name in the legal code? Posted by: Freestinker
---------------
We actually do not know that you are right. For instance, much early resistance to divorce emanated from the fact that the question would be raised, "What about the children?" So even when children are not mentioned they are in the background.

Of course, gays can adopt children, but we do not know that the relationships are the same. For instance, it is common for stepfathers to be violent or sexually abusive to their stepchildren. It is far less common for biological fathers. So biology makes a difference.

The trouble with liberals is that they not only want to throw out religion, they also want to throw out biology. That is dangerous.

We are now living in times when everything important emanates from the Supreme Court and all important issues are decided now in terms of the law. But law isn't everything. To replace all human talk by "legal-speak" will make life much poorer, perhaps even impossible.

Sometimes, the law has to obey life and not vice versa.

Here is my suggestion. Some people have said that we should get rid of the word "marriage" and only have civil unions. So let me suggest that we have civil unions for everyone, and those hetero-sexuals who see no difference, can also choose to change the name of their relationship from "married" to "civilly united." If both partners agree, they can just go to a registrar and change their official status from "married" to "united in a civil union."

But they do not have the right to forbid more traditional heterosexual couples from being able to say, "Our relationship is different from a civil union."

Why not just have the law call all legal unions "civil unions" regardless of gender and leave the term "marriage" out of the legal code completely?
Wouldn't that be a fair and just solution for everyone?
Posted by: Freestinker | July 30, 2009 10:34 AM

-------------
I am a woman happily married to a man. We have gay and lesbian friends who are happily married to those they love - some legally, some not. Our marriage is neither weakend nor strengthened by theirs. In fact, it is impossible for anyone other than me and my husband to weaken or strengthen our marriage.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | July 30, 2009 11:33 AM

-------------
To "freestinker". It depends. If we believe that it is important for children to have two parents, and that biological connection is important, then we do need laws specifically intended for hetero parents. Look, liberals are constantly quoting Darwin against the religious - so let me point out that the whole point of evolution is the continuation of progeny, which, for humans, means progeny by hetero-sexual relations.

A distinction between hetero and gay relationships is important for society. You want to erase a meaningful and important distinction in order to "make everyone happy." But gays should be happy to have their relationships respected - they do not need to tread on other people's turf or on evolution.

Try and take your bicycle on the freeway in the name of "equality" and see how far you get. Bikes are fine, but they are not cars, and they do not belong on the freeway.

To lepidopteryx, maybe not all marriages are as strong as yours, or maybe there are some people for whom the strength of their marriage depends on certain traditions and certain values. They have a right to tell you, "Because you, lepidopteryx, do not care about certain things, that does not give you the right to take them away from us."

Suppose some court decided that Muslims have the right to call themselves Jews. Perhaps some liberal Jews might say, "That is fine with us." But it may not be quite so fine for Orthodox Jews or even for some conservative ones. It should be a decision made by the entire Jewish community and not just by some liberal Jews for whom, perhaps, "Anything goes."

You have the right to give away what is only yours. You do not have the right to give certain values away on behalf of ALL heterosexuals.

"That wont make Him go away!! He created this universe..no we did not evolve from slime on a rock!!!If you believe that, you have more faith then me.

Posted by: jitl | July 29, 2009 12:57 PM "

Nice try at a straw man argument, but I did not say that we evolved from slime on a rock. And you completely ignored my question about denying marriage licenses to atheists and agnostics. My guess is that the answer is inconvenient for you so you chose to try and turn the discussion in another direction by adding your comment about evolving from slime on a rock.

If you do not advocate denial of marriage licenses to atheists and agnostics your argument that marriage "has everything to do with God" is clearly an exercise attempting to justify your antipathy toward people who are homosexual. It is also quite hypocritical, in my opinion.

Believe whatever makes you feel secure and happy. Just don't expect me or the millions of other people who reject your religious dogma to be constrained by its rules. Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion or there is no freedom at all.

ROHITCUNY: As for gays, they are absolutely right to want respect, to live their lives in peace and happiness. They have a right to the legal recognition of their relationships.
But they should leave alone the institution of heterosexual marriage which has served society sort of well for thousands of years, which is currently quite weak, and which will be weakened even further if gay relationships and hetero marriages are called by the same name.
**************************************************************************************
If your heterosexual marraige can be weakened by a gay couple calling their legal union a marriage, I would say that the gay couple and what they call their relationship isn't the problem.
I am a woman happily married to a man. We have gay and lesbian friends who are happily married to those they love - some legally, some not. Our marriage is neither weakend nor strengthened by theirs. In fact, it is impossible for anyone other than me and my husband to weaken or strengthen our marriage.

Definitions are important!!!

Hmmm, Marriage defined as mutual and exclusive intercoursing: Sacred Rite
or Civil Right?

Both!!! (if you are heterosexual).

There is another rite/right for homosexuals defined as Mutual Masturbation or exclusive outercoursing (as noted by a simple Google/Bing search).

End of discussion!!!

"As for gays, they are absolutely right to want respect, to live their lives in peace and happiness. They have a right to the legal recognition of their relationships."

"Try instead to come up with a nice name which can be used for your relationships, and fight to have it recognized by law. If you do that, you will find many of us on your side."

"We are not talking "superior, inferior" here. We are talking about making sensible distinctions."

=====================

ROHITCUNY,

Making a distinction in the law is unnecessary if the rights, priviledges, and obligations of a same-sex union legal contract are the same as existing opposite-sex civil marriage.

The gender of the spouses is completely irrelevant to the terms of the current "civil marriage" legal contract so why should the exact same contract for same-sex couples be given a different name in the legal code?

What rights or benefits would you propose be different between the two?

Why not just have the law call all legal unions "civil unions" regardless of gender and leave the term "marriage" out of the legal code completely?

Wouldn't that be a fair and just solution for everyone?

"But they should leave alone the institution of heterosexual marriage which has served society sort of well for thousands of years, which is currently quite weak, and which will be weakened even further if gay relationships and hetero marriages are called by the same name."

==================

ROHITCUNY,

What evidence do you have that allowing same-sex marriage will weaken opposite-sex marriage?

I just don't see any connection between the two.

I must say that I resent the implication which many religious AND secular people seem to make that religious = Christian. Hey people, there are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Taoists in this country. They are religious and they are not Christian.

Many Christians (but not all) oppose gay marriage and I think they are wise to do so. But in their opposition, they should not refer to Genesis in which not all religious people believe.

They should rather think that most religious marriages have been heterosexual ones and perhaps there is some practical wisdom there, rather than some kind of sectarian dogmatism.

As for gays, they are absolutely right to want respect, to live their lives in peace and happiness. They have a right to the legal recognition of their relationships.

But they should leave alone the institution of heterosexual marriage which has served society sort of well for thousands of years, which is currently quite weak, and which will be weakened even further if gay relationships and hetero marriages are called by the same name.

Please don't go there!

Try instead to come up with a nice name which can be used for your relationships, and fight to have it recognized by law. If you do that, you will find many of us on your side.

I would suggest "gayrrage" but it sounds too much like a place to keep cars. I am sure better alternatives are available!

"Separate by equal" does not work? But no one is talking about separate. I bought my apartment 15 years ago from a gay realtor, and he lives in my building. He is far richer than I am, and he deserves his wealth.

We are not talking "superior, inferior" here. We are talking about making sensible distinctions.

Full disclosure first: I am a committed Christian. I think that discriminating against homosexuals is unChrist-like.

I agree with Welton Gaddy. Let the states allow civil unions for any couple. Government cannot force religious institutions to sanction any union as marriage. It's unlikely, for example, that Baptists in my state (West Virginia) will be recognizing gay civil unions as marriages. But WV Baptists (or other persons of faith anywhere else in the US) shouldn't be in the business of restricting the rights of other citizens.

As to the practical concerns: as we all know, government regulates current marriages by requiring married persons to submit to laws governing property, custody of children, etc. These laws can be good, bad, or indifferent, but they are alterable by us(!) and serve, however imperfectly, to ensure stability within domestic relationships. Current tax law also gives married persons certain advantages (ones that LiberalBasher, now divorced, really dislikes); those laws also serve (again, imperfectly) to ensure domestic stability.

I think we are better off when we encourage stability in domestic relationships. I concede that such relationship break (I am once-divorced, now happily married), but I think that having laws which regulate both the formation and dissolution of relationships produce, ON THE WHOLE, a more stable society.

My very happy marriage is NOT threatened in any way by the prospect of civil unions for same-sex couples.

I think.

Marriage:Faith & Love=Beautiful Life=Beautiful Persons.

Beautiful Persons:Beautiful inside & beautiful outside=beautiful mind & beautiful works.

I oppose religious arguments against gay marriage. There are many of us who are not Christians, and we do not like the implication that our marriages are not valid because they are not blessed by Jehovah. Marriages of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, are all valid and should not be ruled by the old testament. What the religious opponents of gay marriage are doing is they are actually fostering gay marriage by putting foward a narrow, sectarian interpretation of hetero marriage.

But there are purely secular arguments against gay relationships being called marriage.

For the fact is that we have in this US, a 50% divorce rate and 40% of American children are born out of any family at all. Hetero marriage is in serious trouble.

To call gay relationships "marriage" will weaken hetero marriage and is very unwise.

But to oppose them on religious grounds is also unwise, because such arguments are sectarian, and through their weakness, they actually weaken the case against gay marriage.

Gay relationships should be treated with respect and recognized in law as far as possible. But it should not be the case that they are confused with hetero marriage and every law enacted for couples with biological children automatically applies to gay couples. It may, it may not, but such an application should not be automatic.

That would be like calling bicycles cars in the name of equality and have them undergo an emissions test every year. And that WOULD happen if we insist that "bicycle riders are not inferior" and bicycles are cars too! :)

I agree with you that marriage is an institution in which the government plays the dominant role and religious institutions are basically a side show. But it does not follow that a pragmatic, secular choice HAS to recognize gay marriage. We do not allow people to drive at 14 and the reason for banning it is not religious - it is pragmatic. It does not serve society's interest to let 14 year olds drive,

So the issue of gay marriage should be discussed on its own secular merits, but without the presumption that the answer must be "if it is a secular issue then the answer is of course yes." It could be "no" on pragmatic grounds. Hetero marriage is already in enough trouble that it is unwise to put this additional burden on it of conflating hetero marriage with a very different institution.

If gay relationships are called "marriage" then it is inevitable that our view of hetero marriage will also change and it will seem to be a very different kind of thing, and a weaker one. Maybe we are wiser not going there.

To be sure, we have relationships of affection and loyalty with many, with our relatives, with our friends, even with our dogs. But not every such relationship needs to be called marriage.

When it comes to recognition of gay relationships, that is a different issue and a civil rights argument CAN be made (as was made by the California Supreme Court) that such a recognition is a civil right. I think if there is a federal bill recognizing such relationships, then the pressure for "gay marriage" will diminish radically.

Thank you, Mr. Gaddy, for being a voice of reason on this very devisive topic. I would welcome more discussion on the issue. Unfortunately, it appears that there are those who feel attacked by an opinion different from their own.

A baptist minister should certainly be familiar with Genesis 2; marriage is first of all a covenant instituted by God. Marriage predates the State and is primarily "guaranteed" by God, not the State. The flimsy condition of marriage today is a direct result of the "secularizing" of marriage.

"So, religious marriage has existed for centuries but legal marriage has arisen only in the last two centuries."

The concept of two individuals choosing to spend their lives together predates law and religion. It even predates human beings, many animals mate for life. Homosexual behavior among animals is common, too, so we didn't even invent that.

There is so much hatred on earth. Can we all just get along and let adults live their lives in peace? We are truly living in the last days on earth, before man destroys each other with hate and war.

JITL: ""And the only just solution is to have same-sex marriage, which is a natural right derived from God""

"Show me where you see that in the BIBLE???"

Actually, it's someone's paraphrase of the *Constitution,* (which doesn't specify the God of the Bible, actually, just 'whoever 'created' us') Unalienable human rights thereafter enumerated.

If your book-God doesn't answer to that description, that's your problem, not American law's.

I still think that in America, we should start with equal justice for all, *yesterday.* The people who have a problem with 'definitions' can ask to have their sensibilities about a 'definition' honored *after* they stop hurting real people in real ways.

And, 'Liberalbasher,' if you don't know how civil marriage makes certain circumstances a lot *easier* to deal with, you've never lived *without* it.

Gods know LBGT couples break up, too, sometimes, but usually when we want to jump the broom, it's not cause we needed permission from a priest to uncork our sex drives, or admit we have already, only to have reality set in six months later that there's more to marriage than straight sex, tax deductions, and shows of piety.

The state only got involved in legalizing marriage two centuries ago because everyone needed to know who owned the couple's assets. Before then marriages were political (the rich, royalty, etc.) or economic (cheaper for two living together than separately). Before capitalism you were rich because you inherited it. But with capitalism a new avenue to becoming rich arose, and it was based on finance, manufacturing and other methods of acquiring wealth.

So, religious marriage has existed for centuries but legal marriage has arisen only in the last two centuries.

And why is marriage the only legal contract which cannot by terminated by all parties to the contract without approval by the state? Because the public needs to know who owns the assets so they can be taxed appropriately. Ridiculous.

Let the state define who can enter into a civil union with legal rights. Let the religious groups define the ceremonial rites.

Hey, allow same sex marriage. BUT, when you do. Remove the tax option of declaring the income of both individuals as one. I want this for ALL marriages.

I'm tired of being screwed tax wise because I'm single. I pay child support, always have. But I can't declare it. So, it's time to make everything equal when it comes to marriage and responsibilities.

Allow the marriages, seriously. Who cares. Stupid argument anyway. I'm not your preacher, I can't tell you what to do. If you believe in god, any god. It's between you and them.

BUT, I'm sick of being screwed with taxes when your going to be another group that gets a tax break.

By the way, gay marriage proponents. Divorce is fun, only costs a little bit, and comes back like that chili you ate the other night. If you think your not going to have that problem, you deserve everything you get. Trust me, doesn't matter if your gay or not. People grow part. Sometimes violently.

JITL,

Show me where the U.S. Constitution says our laws should depend on what the Bible says!

Civil marriage is a completely different subject from religious marriage and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the difference tells me you are a theocrat, intent on using civil law to impose your religious opinions on everybody else, whether they like it or not.

Am I right?

"And the only just solution is to have same-sex marriage, which is a natural right derived from God".
Show me where you see that in the BIBLE???
Posted by: jitl

jitl, Norrie is a Buddist, I belive. The Bible does not apply to him as a book of laws he must live by. He has that right under the Constution.

That's the problem with people proclaiming that they have the one truth that everyone must follow. That belief makes no room for religious freedom, a basic right in the US, and one I assume you don't want to give up.

You see, if you can force him to accept your concept of God, someday, someone else can force you to accept theirs. You can believe gay marriage is wrong, immoral, whatever, no one has any interest in stopping you. But you shouldn't have the right to enshrine your viewpoint in law. And that seems to be what you want. Do you?

"And the only just solution is to have same-sex marriage, which is a natural right derived from God".

Show me where you see that in the BIBLE???

"I seek to be involved in attempts to find common ground on which the people in our nation can meet and, through honest, civil debate, find a just solution to a challenge that is splintering our nation and hurting many of its citizens."

You sound as if you thought there could be some middle-of-the-road position in the same-sex marriage debate. There can't be: either the state has gay marriage or it doesn't - there's no middle ground here.

And the only just solution is to have same-sex marriage, which is a natural right derived from God.

I do not believe in your god.
That wont make Him go away!! He created this universe..no we did not evolve from slime on a rock!!!If you believe that, you have more faith then me.

"GOD has everything to do with marriage. GOD created marriage!"

So, do you advocate laws denying marriage licenses to atheists or agnostics?

I do not believe in your god. There is no reason whatsoever why my life should be controlled by a theology to which I object.

Your church can be as restrictive as it wishes when deciding whose unions to acknowledge. It does not, however, have a legitimate basis for applying those restrictions to people who reject the religious dogma on which they are based.

The current debate has more to do with current cultural norms than Biblical ones posted by:GAROTH
"Current cultural norms" have nothing to do with marriage!! GOD has everything to do with marriage. GOD created marriage!

Exactly right. My wife and I were raised in different faiths. If either of our faiths had the final say, we wouldn't be married. Thank goodness for civil ceremonies.

My own church, the Lutheran Church, has always held that marriage is a secular institution, part of the "left hand" rule of God. Throughout the scriptures, there are numerous ways in which this institution is worked out. At some points, having a number of wives is not seen as abnormal or immoral; living with a person may, similarly, be according to custom. Church theologians have regarded marriage as an "order of creation." The current debate has more to do with current cultural norms than Biblical ones.