NationStates Jolt Archive

first.. here is a site to give you an idea of the debate... (which hidges on birth defects)
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t3347.html

While i would love to give you a direct website now naming some documented cases.. there are simply too many porn websites i really dont want to have to deal with while trying to filter out the informative ones.. However, to give you some perspective, you've to look no further then the mid west and southern states, where incest cases are more rampint.. cousins having sexual relations, even brothers and sisters.. THough you identify incest with rape cases, rape cases simply do not make up the entirty of incest occurances (much to my disgust)..

Legally speaking, incestual couples(specifically siblings) would already have some of the legal rights of a married couple because of their blood relation. For example, when I was younger, if I were to be removed from my parents' home, my aunt (my mother's sister) would have legal custody of me. The paperwork for that is very simple and not difficult to obtain. Another example: if one person was in the hospital, the other would still be allowed visitation due to the blood relationship.

The main reason gay marriage is being pursued is due to legal rights. Currently, even if a homosexual couple managed to have a wedding ceremony performed, the most that could result is a very limited civil union. This does not allow for the rights that should be given to a married couple. Legally speaking, something is very wrong with this situation.

Why do u need a secular argument against gay marriage.. your truely living a lie if you belive this country (the united states) is a secular state. Judicial systems, executive systems, currency all prove that religion plays a big role in government.. even if it is simply generalized ideas of religion, not identifying with one particular religion over another (except for taking the stand in any trial where you swear on the bible). To this reality I dont' feel you need a secular argument against gay marraige, especially when 80% of the country identifys themselves with some religious organization.


How about a semi-religious arguement for it then? Some religious groups perform gay marriages. By denying those marrisages are legal, the government is essentially promoting one religious practice over another. Sounds like a violation of Freedom of Religion to me!



The best explanation ive heard in scientific terms against homosexual activity, (which essentially makes marriage or a union of them even more obsured) is that it is unnatural, because it is essentially deviant acitivity within nature. The purpose of life in terms of science is the passing on of genes (why all life forms can reproduce). To this point, since homosexual activity never produces life.. it is deviant activity and henceforth unnatural.

Incorrect. The purpose of life in terms of sciece is propagation of the species. Not necessarily your own genes. The species. Gays can assist others in raising children without taking up any resources for their own children (esp. when resources are scarce and populations are high) so they can be evoluationarily advantageous. There are numerous exampples of homosexuality in other mammals, therefore it does occur in nature. Since the human race is at an all time high in population, it would seem that gays haven't hurt us either.

Even if the above isn't the exact reason homosexuals are still around, it doesn't mean there isn't a good one. A hundred years ago we didn't understand human physiology--but it didn't mean there wasn't a point to it.

So what am I rambling about? There could be a beneficial biological reason behind homosexuals.

But beyond that--since when have religious groups and the government ever based their huge decisions on science? It seems like we spend most of our time trying to get around science.

Scientists will also tell you that there is more to life than pure science.

The best argument against gay marraige is that holy matrimony is between a man and a women, and that's how it should be. It is Christians who are against it, mainly, it isn't secular. Changing the rules of marriage would be kind of like the government changing something in Islam, and the government shouldn't be able to do that. For the record, I am a Christian, and I am against gay marriage. I think gays should be allowed to have civil unions in which they get all the same benefits as a married couple. If they want to have a ceremony, then they can.


So what about the Christian groups that perform gay marriages? Isn't the government essentially changing something in their religion and valuing one group over another?

it may have a long history.. but it is far from the norm.. very far..

Your trying to prove its not a deviant activity by showing the range at which it occurs across different species.. but looking at each species individually, as a matter of the percentage of the occurance.. It is essentially deviant.. occuring in a vast minority. This is true becuase esentially homosexual activity doesn't meet reproductive requirements.. as in no spread of genetic material. Without this the species can't move forward, so homosexual activity can never be anything but deviant.. otherwise the speices dosn't survive.


See my previous post on the passing of genetic material.

Further, just because something occurs in the minority of time in a species does not make it deviant. If it did people who are left-handed, blue eyed, red haired, or shorter or taller than the average would all be deviant. You are confusing normal with the norm.

Wow, deviant is a scientific term now, WOW. *laughs*

These threads sure bring out the drivel.

Wow, deviant is a scientific term now, WOW. *laughs*

These threads sure bring out the drivel.


Is that how you spell drivel? I'm never sure, so I always alternate between drivel and dribble.

to answer for him.. i would say no.. because we are moral religious people who realize our morals are given to us from a higher power not majority rule.. however, for an atheist.. woudln't that answer be yes ? morals are essentially dictated by society... not inherent rights.. because otherwise, where do these inherent rights come from.. they are certainly observed no where else in nature (where it is surivival of the fittest).

So basically when it's something you agree with it should be up to the majority and everyone else should shut up and put up, but when it's something you disagree with you'd protest it?
Hurrah for democracy?

The U.S. especially, but also many other countries have a very christian bases. It states right in the Bible "A man shall not lie with another man." And yes that goes for women too. Everyone knows that if you lose the base of a structure, that structure will collapse sooner or later. Christianity is the base of many countries, so let's not let them fall flat on there face.

The U.S. especially, but also many other countries have a very christian bases. It states right in the Bible "A man shall not lie with another man." And yes that goes for women too. Everyone knows that if you lose the base of a structure, that structure will collapse sooner or later. Christianity is the base of many countries, so let's not let them fall flat on there face.

No it doesn't. It says it in Leviticus. That isn't a bible.

Ok, there's an insane amount of replies to this, and I have only read about half of them...

Anyway, in Norway we have a Partnership system, which basically means homosexual couples can "marry" or rather join in partnership, gives the same rights as a married couples, at least to some extent, but it's not a religiously based thing.

For the necrophilia thing:
I'd say if you want to have sex with a corpse, go ahead, just don't kill anyone to get hold of a corpse.
Why should we care for what happens to a dead body anyway, the body is just a construction that is neat for carrying cells for reproducing more cells, that hopefully will have better qualities than those produced for this construction.
(You might now have realized that I'm an antitheist)

Same goes for dendrophilia, if you like trees, go ahead, just don't chop them down or damage living trees in some way doing it.

Pedophilia, no that's not ok.

Beastiality, we're still talking of a living being here, cells that are still alive is
a no no.

Someone said that philias are weird and perverse, but didn't mind homosexuality: homophilia is the original name(For both sexes, androphilia is the original name for male homosexuality, learn thy greek and latin be not a barbarian(actually comes fom the word beard, but means a person who doesn't know latin)), and is still somewhat used in Norway (biphilia is used for bisexual, although for both we also use the -sexual form).

There was a post about gays bringing up children would increase the homosexual population, that is untrue as of this date, research shows that a larger percentage of children raised by a gay couple is heterosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.

People say homosexuality is unnatural, which is also untrue, considering the fact that almost all animals show homosexual activity (usually bisexual, but still) and man has for as long as we have existed (it's been proven more common in crowded environments for animals, and has been thoerized as nature's way of preventing overpopulation, I'm kind of biased towards this theory, and you may or may not hate me for it).

I can understand why religious marriage between homosexuals is banned, but you don't have to get married in the church, there is something called town/city hall which would allow you to get married governmentally(not sure if that's what it is called in english).

And the overpopulation thing about the world being overpopulated and therefore it should be allowed is a really bad argument.
As the problem is actually that people live too long, there are too many old people, and we actually need to have more children than we currently are, because on average couples have less than 2 children, meaning over time there will be a 2 old people to 1 young person.
Meaning also that when the old people eventually do die, we get a lowered populous, which would mean less genetic diversity, which in turn would mean human life would eventually die out.

Well, enough extremities from my side, just thought I'd say a few things.
And heck, why shouldn't gay marriage/partnership be allowed?
Sure lesbians get divorced more often than heterosexuals and androphiliacs, but that's not the point (this is at least a statistical fact in Norway).
I used to consider myself a homophobe (although I've realized that most guys I know are much worse than I am), but I've always been for equal rights for gay people (hey they are "happy" (you know gay) even without equal rights, think of what a joyous place the world could be if they had equal rights).

The U.S. especially, but also many other countries have a very christian bases. It states right in the Bible "A man shall not lie with another man." And yes that goes for women too. Everyone knows that if you lose the base of a structure, that structure will collapse sooner or later. Christianity is the base of many countries, so let's not let them fall flat on there face.


Care to prove to me that the Unite States of America is based upon Christianity?

You anti-gay moral-stance espousing hypocrites never cease to amaze me with your spinning reality and history out of shape to suit you. What scares you so damned much about homosexuals being treated with the same respect and dignity as you demand for yourselves? HOW does giving them the equality you enjoy for mindlessly breeding and spreading ignorance and hate threaten or cheapen your own?

Do you people REALLY believe that letting gays marry will make YOU sterile? My GOD, that's so stupid I honestly don't know how you manage to tie your own shoes every day. The fact that people SO stupid they could either believe or say such things are allowed to drive cars and have children SCARES the crap out of me. No one that stupid should be allowed near either heavy machinery or children.

Of course, if you continue to successfully push regulation of basic rights towards intolerance and fascist governing of the sort you are so FERVENTLY embracing, you run the very serious risk of finding YOURSELVES and YOUR lifestyles and beliefs in jeopardy should someone with opposing views come into power. Of course, this does not compute in your pointy little heads. You think you are invulnerable to these inequities by virtue of your pigheadedness. I suffer no such delusions.

Even if I didn't think homosexuality was a natural, beneficial behavior I would not behave so poorly as you do and would not seek to discriminate against or deprive the practicers of their basic rights. If I were to be like YOU, I would be actively seeking to forbid the institution of organized religion. ALL organized religion. I feel that organized religion promotes ignorance, glorifies violence, seeks to supress social progress and interferes with the evolution of positive, beneficial scientific and technological advancements. Organized religion advocates intellectual atrophy. It espouses a backwoods mob mentality.

Doesn't sound very good to you, does it? Well just chew on that feeling for a few minutes or a few hours until that bad taste REALLY hits your mouth. Mmmm yummy. Kinda like week-old vomit. Well THAT is what you're actively doing to people who prefer the love of their own sex. Except YOU can be deprogrammed and THEY can't.

THEY started this? THEY rubbed YOUR noses in their preferences?? You arrogant, misinformed DUPES!! THEY did no such thing. YOU ACTIVELY SHOVE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DOWN THE THROATS OF THE COLLECTIVE NATION EVERY DAMNED DAY. If one of us protests your religious rape of OUR pursuits of happiness (and mind you, I'm not a gay man), YOU get up in arms and accuse US of violating YOUR rights and persecuting you for YOUR beliefs. I'm sorry, honey, but if you think for one second that forcing someone who isn't interested in following your outdated recipe for a successful BREEDING PROGRAM for a technologically disadvantaged desert area population into adopting your lifestyle choice is a good, righteous thing to do, you've got another thing coming. YOU shove your outdated, dysfunctional CRAP in my face every damned day. And not just mine, but EVERYONES.

FFS you people can't even follow your own core religious directives. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to the rest of society? You and the rest of these Christ-defacing, Bible humping W-Bush BROWNSHIRTS need to sit the hell down and STFU for a while. YOU are not the majority. YOU just happen to scream a little louder. YOU just happened to had the amazing fortune to have an election set up so that the choices were SO bad that your fascist moron from Texas managed to bully his way into office, by YET AGAIN a very narrow margin. And you have the AUDACITY to gloat and claim that the people were speaking against gay marriage and gay rights... you make me SICK. Nearly 50% of us voted AGAINST George the Second and his crusade against everything that isn't to HIS liking and for everything that puts money in HIS PERSONAL pockets.

NEVER has there been an election where a large percentage of the population was so alarmed and unhappy about the income that they would actively consider LEAVING THE COUNTRY. OMFG!!! And you think that JACKASS speaks for or even vaguely represents the will and the voice of the nation?? Are you HIGH??? You stupid breeder.... How DARE you.

I've got a question for every single christian who wants to restrict/define marraige on the basis of marraige being a christian institution. If marraige is so important to you, that you feel the need to dictate the terms of other peoples' (including people you dont know, have never met, and are never going to meet) marraiges, why isnt it important enough for you bother finding out the most basic facts about marraige, most pertinently that it is not a christian invention, and very obviously so...?

For those concerned about legislating something 'unnatural', because it is a deviance within nature, please consider the meaning of 'within nature', and the meaning of 'unnatural', hopefully you can take it from there yourselves....

With regards to deviation, it is essential for long term viability. Deviance is neither good nor bad, it is more or less adaptive, according to the situtation in which it occurs.

18 pages and not one viable argument against legal recognition of homosexual marraiges, so no surprises there.....(again)

Getting a bit tired of the "Christians versus Gays" construct.

There are plenty of Christian churches that celebrate and recognise gay and lesbian partnerships. There are Christian churches that ordain gay and lesbian priests and bishops. The search for meaning and spirituality is part of the human condition.

So what about the Christian groups that perform gay marriages? Isn't the government essentially changing something in their religion and valuing one group over another?
Not really. Gay marraige isn't a part of Christianity. It could be changed to them conducting the ceremony and afterwords signing all the papers and such to make it official. Although I just know if this happened everyone against it would get all nitpicky with, "Well you can't play Hear Comes the Bride because that is a part of marraige!!" etc. Basically, we are not going to see gay marraiges or civil unions for a while, I'd say maybe 20 years, until people, well, the majority of people get over the whole thing. People are scared of change.

1) It's called civil marriage. Civil = secular, so I don't care what your bible says.

2) Marriage is a contract. A contract is a binding agreement between two consenting adults. You can't draw up a contract with your dog. You can't draw up a contract with your truck. You can't draw up a contract with a child.

3) It has been ruled many times that the right to marry is a undeniable human right. Loving vs. Virginia was the first and it was followed by a dozen other cases including one that made it legal for people currently in jail to marry.

4) Our legal system is set up so that the courts will protect minority groups from the malevolent will of the majority. I'm sure if we voted on it America would decide that Saddam Hussein would die a horrible drawn out death on Pay Per Veiw. That doesn’t make that right.

5) To Sapientiam: So people with defective genetic material should not be allowed to reproduce? You hear that midgets, forced sterilization for you!

6) Churches will never be forced to perform gay marriages just like they are not forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings. Courthouses would be the only ones forced to perform gay marriages.

7) Homosexuality has been documented in all mammalian species as well as various avian and reptilian ones. You cannot say it is unnatural.

8) The most conservative estimate of the number of gay people in America is 7.5 million, while most other estimates fall between 15 and 20 million people. The red cross estimates that 16 million people in the US have type O- blood. Is having O- blood deviant too?

9) Marriage itself in not very traditional at all really. Abraham and Sarah shared a father. In the early Christian church it was considered tainted and earthly. It wasn't even declared a sacrament until 1215 AD. Women were not equal in the marriage and didn’t even have custody of their own children until the 19th century. People killed each other over the issue of allowing divorce and it took the better part of a century for the US to standardize divorce from state to state and have all states recognize each others divorces. Interracial marriage was allowed 50 years ago.

10) Gen Curtis E LeMay - According to the FBI 267 people were killed for being gay in 2002. 1 in eight gay people have been physically assaulted for bring gay and over half have received verbal threats and abuse.

Sorry for any repetition

Not really. Gay marraige isn't a part of Christianity. It could be changed to them conducting the ceremony and afterwords signing all the papers and such to make it official. Although I just know if this happened everyone against it would get all nitpicky with, "Well you can't play Hear Comes the Bride because that is a part of marraige!!" etc. Basically, we are not going to see gay marraiges or civil unions for a while, I'd say maybe 20 years, until people, well, the majority of people get over the whole thing. People are scared of change.
Says you, however there are christians who say the contrary, and the government in the US is expected to refrain from arbitrating in disputes over relgious ideology.....
What do you mean 'could be changed to'? You totally lost me here...

Says you, however there are christians who say the contrary, and the government in the US is expected to refrain from arbitrating in disputes over relgious ideology.....
What do you mean 'could be changed to'? You totally lost me here...

The point is that civil marriage (the contract that lets married couples be treated as one entity by the law) has nothing to do with religion. That's why us atheists can get married without having to stoop to involving a random religious church/preist.

No church need have anything to do with homosexual marriage - only the government (the courts) would be forced to acknowledge them, and therefore treat everyone equally. Churches are allowed to be biased - the government isn't.

Well, to be honest I've skipped a few (okay, over a dozen) pages of discussion. Apologies if I (unsurprisingly) overlap on some already discussed content or touch on some that is seemingly irrelevant.



Firstly, some specific points from the beginning of this thread:
gay marriage is wrong because in the past we have not let people of the same gender marry
In the past we have not let people of different races marry. In the past we have not let people of different religions marry.
To extend your point to a broader context: in the past we allowed (actually, accepted) slavery of people simply because of the colour of their skin.


gay marriage is wrong because only people who want and are capable of producing children together should be allowed to marry
What about women past menopause? What about men or women who are infertile? What about people who simply don't want to have children? Should they be denied the right to marry too?


gay marriage is wrong because if gay people can get married it makes my marriage cheaper.
If your marriage is only significant, or only holds value, because it is a right that you have and others don't have because of the gender of the people they love, then I'm afraid your marriage can't get any cheaper.



Now onto the core of my argument. Firstly, homosexuality is not unnatural. The following quote is from another forum and I can't seem to find a legitimate author for it, so the source is simply anonymous:
"What is not according to nature cannot happen in nature. If homosexuality takes place, there is nothing unnatural or contrary to nature about it; it may be contrary to somebody's taste, but then he should not watch homosexual movies or pictures. Furthermore, the concept (and precept) that sexual organs are to be used only for reproduction because it is their natural function to lead to reproduction is fallacious: (A) the organs, like other instruments may have different functions; if Nature prescribed them to be exclusively for reproduction, then they would be so made that they could only serve the purpose of reproduction. (B) The fact that an instrument has a function or one does not imply the moral imperative that it must be used only for one purpose."

This is further backed up by evidence of homosexuality occuring in animals:
"Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..."
"The bonobo, which has a matriarchal society (unusual amongst apes), is a fully bisexual species -- both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for lesbianism in particular."
Homosexual behaviour have also been observed in lizards, sheep and birds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Homsexuality has also occurred throughout history in humans. It was observed in societies such as, "Ancient China," and, "Ancient Greece." (among others - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#History and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etymology_and_usage)

Thus, the argument that "homosexuality is unnatural" is actually simply another (fallacious) way of saying it you don't like it (or is against your religion, et cetera). Homosexuality is not unnatural - it has occured throughout history on a fairly large scale in nature and, by definition, is not unnatural.



Now that we've established homosexuality as a natural variant of the human condition, the relevant question of how and why it occurs is raised. If homosexuality was a concious choice, then I could (vaguely) understand why people would oppose it. However, I think the majority opinion is that sexuality is not a choice (or not something that is easy to change). (see Britannica Encyclopaedia CD-ROM 2005 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_orientation)

How can you therefore conciously and morally oppose the simple rights of homosexuals. They can change their sexuality no more than you can change the colour of your skin. In context of heterosexual sexuality, people (generally) can't choose who they fall in love with. With this in mind, if a man falls in love with another man he cannot help it anymore than you can if you fall in love with a women.

For those who say sexuality is a concious choice, I ask you: when did you sit down and consider your sexuality? When did you sit down and decide you wanted to be attracted to the opposite sex? You never did, did you? That's because it came naturally - it came without thinking. Essentially, your sexuality was not decided upon by concious choice of your own. Apply this to homosexuals and voila! Homosexuality is not a concious choice.

Further anecdotal evidence also supports this. Some young teen males exist that are exceptionally feminine and you can tell instantly that they will be (or will likely be) gay (bordering on stereotypical, I know). At this stage of life, these children have not developed sexually or emotionally enough to make such a concious decision. Thus, we deduce that homosexuality is not a concious choice. Also, I'm sure you can find gay people (maybe even on these forums) that will attest to their sexuality coming naturally to them without any thought involved.



Now, we have established that homosexuality is a natural variation of human behaviour that does not occur by concious choice alone. What does this mean? This means homosexuals are as deserving of equal rights as black people are, as Arabs are, as Jews are - even as deserving as heterosexuals are. Homosexuals are simply asking for the right to be recognised in a stable, loving relationship without being discriminated on the basis of their sexual orientation or the gender of their partners. Is that such a huge ask? On the contrary, I believe that, as humans, they are equally deserving of equal human rights. This means it should not even be an ask - it should be a right available to them as soon as they are born.



Now, onto opposition to gay marriage/civil unions. Most notably is religious opposition. If your religion refuses to tolerate homosexuality, then I will accept that. You have just as much of a right to reject homosexuality as homosexuals do to embrace their sexuality. However, since this is sort of opposition is limited to the confines of religion and church, I will not accept it being used to oppose legislation (especially in a mostly secular society - not to mention separation of church and state). Your personal views (or more accurately the views of your religion) are what I consider more philosophical - opinionated. They are simple, elemantary objections that hardly justify restricting people based on something they (as previously mentioned) can't change, and is even absolutely natural.

Therefore, you must convince me (and many, many others) that there are negative, practical implications of gay marriage. Your religion rejecting homosexuality or your personal views of it being, "icky," do not justify denying real people the right to equal rights. Thus, you must show to me that gay marriage/civil unions will be bad for society for me to even consider your argument. And so far, I have yet to see any reasonable, realistic and logical objections to this legislation based on potential practical implications.
Now, how could letting homosexuals be recognised in loving relationships be bad for society?

There are obvious responses to the above question that I will address. Firstly, that allowing gay marriage somehow, "destroys the sanctity of marriage." For one, this is a catch-phrase that is seemingly thrown around whenever gay marriage is brought up. From my experience, those who use it could not elaborate on what it means, let alone how gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. Furthermore, I hate to say it but heterosexuals destroyed, "the sanctity of marriage," long ago. The sanctity of marriage is not going to be destroyed by homosexuals, who will no doubt (and have so far proven) to lead just as stable marriages as heterosexuals.

Secondly, allowing gay marriage has also been seen as an attempt to endorse homosexuality and this will lead to a larger number of gays. Firstly, I doubt it will lead to increased numbers of homosexuals. The only thing that will increase is the tolerance and acceptance of people of a range of sexual orientations. A positive side effect of this: people are happier. Homosexuals won't feel as compelled to live in secrecy in fear of rejection and ridicule. This would undoubtedly decrease the numbers of homosexuals committing suicide. Even if it did increase the number of homosexuals, who cares? As long as people are happy and enjoy a loving, comfortable life then I have no objections to this. I doubt that the number of homosexuals would increase enough to threaten the population of the human race... that's a bit too farfetched for me. Anyway, I'm sure there's much more immediate threats to the survival of humanity than the proportion of homosexual individuals on Earth.



Well... I seem to have written a tad more than expected. To conclude: homosexuality is natural. It is something that is not chosen; it cannot be helped. As such, homosexuals deserve equal rights. They deserve the right to be recognised in their relationships. Unless you can prove to me that gay marriage will likely have negative impacts on society, then quite frankly your opposition is probably narrow-minded and unsubstantiated.



Note: there are also differences between civil unions and gay marriage. Others here seem to have sufficiently addressed that, so I have left that out of my argument.

The point is that civil marriage (the contract that lets married couples be treated as one entity by the law) has nothing to do with religion. That's why us atheists can get married without having to stoop to involving a random religious church/preist.

No church need have anything to do with homosexual marriage - only the government (the courts) would be forced to acknowledge them, and therefore treat everyone equally. Churches are allowed to be biased - the government isn't.
Well I dont want to discourage you, because that's all very clearly put, however it clarifies nothing for me, I already understand what marraige is, that's why I'm wondering why Thwick is suggesting 'changing it' to minister ceremony thing first then sign to make it legal (or at least thats what I think Thwick is saying). No minister or church does not equal no marraige, no signie the paper otherwards does equal no marraige, so what I am confused about is why Thwick describes 'doing the minister thing, then signing to make it legal a change?

Well I dont want to discourage you, because that's all very clearly put, however it clarifies nothing for me, I already understand what marraige is, that's why I'm wondering why Thwick is suggesting 'changing it' to minister ceremony thing first then sign to make it legal (or at least thats what I think Thwick is saying). No minister or church does not equal no marraige, no signie the paper otherwards does equal no marraige, so what I am confused about is why Thwick describes 'doing the minister thing, then signing to make it legal a change?

Oh, I think he was talking about separating civil marriage from the religious ceremony.... making it so *any* two consenting adults can get the civil part, but only couples that a church approves of can have a ceremony in that church... sort of thing.

Cerebral-, bravo to you on a VERY well-written arguement. Every point on it has been covered at one time or another in this thread and a host of others on these forums, but never so... well... nicely. I only wish the opposition could make an intelligent point or at least practice such lucid thinking in writing their anti-gay rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the anti-gay hegemony sticks its fingers in its collective ears and screams "Mary Had A Little Lamb" every time someone says anything but "damn queers are going to make us all sterile" or some other such ignorant garbage. It's really quite atrocious.

This ISN'T a Christians vs Gays topic, though with loudmouthed morons like Gen Curtis LeMay, one might naturally assume such a thing. Some of the posters defending the rights of gay people to marriage are both heterosexual AND Christian (I'd say these defenders have a far better claim to the label Christian than some of these gaybashing trailerpark refugees we've got going on about marrying livestock and their dead, underaged, fictional sisters...) so it's pretty evident that people who really DO have God in their hearts ALSO have room for letting a long-suffering minority live and let live.

Oh, I think he was talking about separating civil marriage from the religious ceremony.... making it so *any* two consenting adults can get the civil part, but only couples that a church approves of can have a ceremony in that church... sort of thing.
Oh, so that would mean Thwick is now in favour of homosexual marraiges?

I mean churches already have freedom to refuse to conduct services for any reason (or even no reason), anyway, and no one needs a church or religious minister to get married....or maybe it's just that I'm overdue for a coffee.... ;)

Institutions are only strong because they are mutally exclusive.. marriage is the fondation for the faimly unit.. the family unit as we know it today will be dramatically altered if gay marriage becomes common place.. the family unit already suffers because people think so little of marriage that they can disolve it at the first sign of trouble.. Children already suffer greatly from the great divorse rate. Its not just about "true love" .. its about societies core being the family. If this isn't the reason why marriage is so important why then dont we allow poligamist marriages (or inter-marriage or underaged marriage etc.)? If it were just about love.. marriage would be far less exclusive

Gay marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage -- a married couple need not have children to provide a strong example of the value of the societal norm (and that's the reason why we do and should encourage heterosexual couples who for whatever reason to marry and not just 'shack up').

Consider: If widowed Grandma and that nice widower gentleman from her church fall in love over coffee cake in the parish hall and want to be together, do we (Society) encourage them just to live together without marriage because Granny has gone through The Change and can't get knocked up? Of course not -- they would be setting a bad example for their grandchildren and the young generation in general, telling them marriage is uneccessary until/unless the prospect of children are in the picture.

The same thing applies to same sex couples: Imagine two teenagers, Tom and Suzy, announcing to their parents they are in love and are going to live together without marriage. 'You must marry!' say the outraged parents. 'Marriage is about more than just love, it's an exclusive institution for the support of children.'

'But,' reply the love-smitten Tom, 'Suzy is on the pill,' so we're not going to have children to support. If something goes wrong with our contraception method, we'll get married then.' (If marrying your girl after you get her pregnant is good enough for the Rev. Pat Robertson, it's good enough for the rest of Middle America.)

'You will lack the security marriage provides -- without the legal bond of marriage, you are likely to dissolve your relationship at the first sign of trouble!' explain Mom and Dad.

'But look at Uncle Dave and his partner, Bill,' says Suzy. 'They have been living together for ten years. When Bill was laid off and out of work for three months, Dave supported them both. And when Uncle Dave had cancer, Bill nursed him through his illness. They are living successfully without the "security" of marriage -- indeed, the preacher's sermons two or three times a year remind us how important and good it is that Uncle Dave and Bill aren't married, legislatures across the country have affirmed they can never be married, virtually all the leading political candidates from both parties have assured that Uncle Dave and Bill are not, can not and will never be married. Tom and I can live together just the way Dave and Bill do, and then we'll get married if it's necessary to support a child, later.'

Now, homosexual couple Dave and Bill may be married, in the eyes of God as God has given them the light to understand His Will. They may have a committment not to dissolve their union when things get tough, but to suport one another through better or worse until death they do part. They may be a better example in their lives of a committment to a life-long relationship that the parents of Tom and Suzy. But because Society pretends that such a committment doesn't exist, and denies them any visible declaration of that committed relationship, the example Society makes of Dave and Bill's successful partnership is one that weakens the bond of marriage, by presenting (perhaps inaccurately) that it exists without benefit of the committment publicly symbolized by the institution of marriage. But that's Society's error, not a flaw in the relationship Bill and Dave have.

There are two ways Society can fix the deeply flawed paradigm of marriage successful same-sex families create:

One is to try to make certain homosexual couples don't have successful relationships: Pile lots of societal and legal pressures on them -- encourage families of people like Bill and Dave not to accept the relationship, so having a homosexual relationship will come between the gay person and his family; place burdens on their ability to plan for a future together (for example, by taxing them for Social Security while denying them survivor benefits, taxing 'domestic partner' benefits, or discouraging employers from offering such benefits), make securing such basic support roles as hospital visitation, community property and inheritance rights difficult, expensive, or simply impossible. In short, persecute gays -- make their lives as miserable as Society can manage, so their 'lifestyle' (including living together) is unattractive.

Or Society can say that gay people should conduct themselves with the same obligations (and privileges) afforded to other people: you want to live together and have the advantages that involves? Then you make a committment to one another before God and before Society, in the form of a marriage covenant, a committment not to run at the first sign of difficulty (as your hetero brothers and sisters do too easily), to be the first and greatest source of support for one another (and Society/government only the LAST resort of support), and maintain a monogamous relationship or face the wrath of Society and the Divorce Courts.

Make the Bill and Dave couples of the world an example of what Society expects the next generation to do -- to make a committed, lifelong partnership, a serious compact, and not a casual living together arrangement.

Mom and Dad would be better served in guiding their love-struck teens by being able to say: 'When you become an adult and hormones and instinct are driving you to mate, part of being an adult is to commit to your mate for life, just like your mother and I did, just like Grandma Alice and Step-Grandpa Joe did after Grandpa George died, just like Uncle Dave and Uncle Bill have done.'

Not really. Gay marraige isn't a part of Christianity. It could be changed to them conducting the ceremony and afterwords signing all the papers and such to make it official. Although I just know if this happened everyone against it would get all nitpicky with, "Well you can't play Hear Comes the Bride because that is a part of marraige!!" etc. Basically, we are not going to see gay marraiges or civil unions for a while, I'd say maybe 20 years, until people, well, the majority of people get over the whole thing. People are scared of change.

And who are you to define what is a part of Christianity? The fact remains that there are Christian groups that perform gay marraiges--including some divisions of the Methodist, Episcopal, and PCUSA churches (these are majory denominations here). And beyond that, what about the non-Christians groups. You folks are stepping all over their freedom of religion.

I hope that one day gays are the majority (yes I realize that this will never happen and is silly, but one can dream) and that we vote to ban heterosexual marriage. Then I'd like to see what you all hav eto say about the majority deciding on issues of civil rights and equality.

The point is that civil marriage (the contract that lets married couples be treated as one entity by the law) has nothing to do with religion. That's why us atheists can get married without having to stoop to involving a random religious church/preist.

No church need have anything to do with homosexual marriage - only the government (the courts) would be forced to acknowledge them, and therefore treat everyone equally. Churches are allowed to be biased - the government isn't.


Let me put the arguement you are responding to in perspective. I started it. I agree that no religious group should be forced to perform a gay marriage EVER. However, I was pointing out to all those people who argue that marriage is solely a religious institution that there ARE religious groups that already perform them. By not recognizing them, the government is violating Freedom of Religion by effectively making a law that recognizes one religion over another.

And who are you to define what is a part of Christianity?


That is up to George Bush.

Then I'd like to see what you all hav eto say about the majority deciding on issues of civil rights and equality.

We'd first need to slag them in at least two major religions for at least a few centuries, invent appropriate epiphets and churn out study after study how they endanger children and are severely mentally disturbed.

We'd first need to slag them in at least two major religions for at least a few centuries, invent appropriate epiphets and churn out study after study how they endanger children and are severely mentally disturbed.

Don't we already have proof of how they endanger children and are severel mentally disturbed? Look at Phleps for goodness sake. . . .

Don't we already have proof of how they endanger children and are severel mentally disturbed? Look at Phleps for goodness sake. . . .

Most of the far religious right gives me the creeps and I wouldn't trust any of them around youngins lest they fill their heads with trite illogic but that Phelps guy belongs in a loonie bin.

Most of the far religious right gives me the creeps and I wouldn't trust any of them around youngins lest they fill their heads with trite illogic but that Phelps guy belongs in a loonie bin.

And not to attack all Christians or even all Catholics. . .but let's look at how safe kids are around so many priests?

Most of the far religious right gives me the creeps and I wouldn't trust any of them around youngins lest they fill their heads with trite illogic but that Phelps guy belongs in a loonie bin.

Have you ever seen a picture of him?

That's a face that could give people nightmares...