What's the problem?

[Azurain]

Point: The idea here is that currently, if people are married, they are required by law to recieve any and all benefits of said marriage, and be recognized as such. A union licence, which then allowed people to get any sort of joining they pleased would allow business, groups and organizations to choose which to recognize. MORE freedom. Not less. You want to get a gay "marriage"? Fine. I won't stop you. But I don't recognize it as such. Maybe I own an apartment complex that offers reduced rates on two bedroom appartments to married couples. This way I don't have to rent that apartment to you at the reduced rate. I don't recognize it as a marriage.

Wait, so you don't want to be forced to legally recognise a gay marriage as a marriage? Could I then have the same objection to straight marriages, and so ask that they be disallowed, because I don't want to have to see it as a legally recognised marriage since I don't believe in straight marriage? That sounds like the reasoning you're using...

I know you agree with the idea of civil unions all around, which I also consider to be ideal, but... failing that, I still can't see why you think it's ok for there to be straight marriages but not gay ones. At least, I don't see any reasoning you can give to support that that doesn't rely upon some form of imposing your own morals on others.

Didn't I just SPECIFY that I was willing to adapt how I feel because I believe in the pursuit of happiness? I'm not telling ANYBODY what they can or cannot do. I'm simply protecting something I believe in.

Apparently you are trying to tell gay people that they cannot be legally married. And, again, I fail to see what it is that you're protecting. The concept that marriage is a term applying exclusively to heterosexuals? You've lost that already. The concept that legal marriage is exclusively heterosexual? Is the legality of it really that important, even if you did have a leg to stand on in rationalising why it shouldn't be allowed?

Convienient of you to igorne my reasoning for that. Nobody argues they have a right to tell people they can't marry their pets.

Pets cannot consent to a marriage, so they'd not be able to be wed. If a gorilla-human chimera capable of speech and a human-like degree of intelligence were to desire to marry a human, with that human's consent, I would honestly argue that it should be perfectly legal. Same with polygamy, though I'm unsure of how exactly benefits should apply to polygamy (to avoid potential abuse on a scale not seen with our current marriage system, which is also abused anyway). Animals and children cannot legally consent to anything, so cannot be married, and so it's a red herring to bring them up.

Arguments aside, I'm curious why you actually believe that a same-sex marriage should not be legally allowed while opposite sex marriages are. I'm wondering how you can reconcile this with your apparent belief in personal freedoms. Remember, we're not talking about your personal view of the term 'marriage' but the idea of it in a legal sense, which I am sure already differs greatly from your own view of it anyways.

[Blaze]

Wait, so you don't want to be forced to legally recognise a gay marriage as a marriage? Could I then have the same objection to straight marriages, and so ask that they be disallowed, because I don't want to have to see it as a legally recognised marriage since I don't believe in straight marriage? That sounds like the reasoning you're using...

Absolutly. I told Fuggle as much in a chat window.

I know you agree with the idea of civil unions all around, which I also consider to be ideal, but... failing that, I still can't see why you think it's ok for there to be straight marriages but not gay ones. At least, I don't see any reasoning you can give to support that that doesn't rely upon some form of imposing your own morals on others.

Precicely, the idea is that marriages would be different in type. Nobody would be FORCED to recognize them. Bank A could refuse to provide a "New Marriages Loan" to Couple A because they don't recognize a Gay Marriage from the Church of Penis as a marriage. If we have just plain old All Around Civil Unions/Marriages, we're opening the door to all kinds of court cases as people refuse to recognize it for this or that. This way, it's perfectly legal to recognize marriage type A, but not B.

As an example, from the bank, it has to treat a Black person, a Jew, a Homosexual, and a straight man the same way, because they're all people. Personal beliefs don't affect that.

BUT, a marriage is not necessarily a marriage in this case. It provides freedom for all people to recognize marriages as they like and apply their values HOW they like. Penis Power Inc. giving away the Honeymoon of a lifetime to new gay "married" couples? Great! What's this? A straight couple wants to try in the giveaway because they're "married". And they have legal recourse to do so! Now, PP Inc. Wants to give away the honeymoon of a lifetime to gay "married" couples with marriage licence type B (Which is given only to male male or female female marriages), then there's no legal recourse for straight couple A to get in there.

Apparently you are trying to tell gay people that they cannot be legally married. And, again, I fail to see what it is that you're protecting. The concept that marriage is a term applying exclusively to heterosexuals? You've lost that already. The concept that legal marriage is exclusively heterosexual? Is the legality of it really that important, even if you did have a leg to stand on in rationalising why it shouldn't be allowed?

I'm trying to procect my rights to recognize what I believe in the way I like.

Arguments aside, I'm curious why you actually believe that a same-sex marriage should not be legally allowed while opposite sex marriages are. I'm wondering how you can reconcile this with your apparent belief in personal freedoms. Remember, we're not talking about your personal view of the term 'marriage' but the idea of it in a legal sense, which I am sure already differs greatly from your own view of it anyways.

You continue to say this. I've stated above. They should be perfectly legal. But they're a different entity, and should be treated as such.

[WolfDreamer]

I think it would be constructive to look at the reasons that support gay marriage. It isn't really fair to deny people in a relationship the right to see their partner in the hospital, or be included on their insurance, or share in property rights, etc etc. Even if I personally feel its a sin for 2 guys to sleep together its cruel to deny them these rights just based on their gender. It ranks up there with not allowing women to vote imho.

That being said I don't think marriage is needed to solve this problem. Civil Unions are the best solution for a number of reasons. A civil union doesn't step all over the beliefs of those who consider gay marriage immoral. Properly worded they give the same rights as a married couple. Gay marriage is voted down by large margins everytime a vote comes up; yet civil unions are widely supported. They would be much more likely to pass. Hell even Bush has stated he supports civil unions.

I've been close friends with many gay & lesbians; some even who lived as married couples. I asked them what was more important: Having a paper that says your "married" or having the right to see your partner in the hospital. Being married lost everytime.

[JarysM]

Before I reenterthe conversation, My homosexual freind wanted me to qoute her on this:

Well my main thing is that if there's supposed to be a separation of church and state, why are religious morals guiding these laws? Also, how is gay marriage ruining other people's lives? It's not like the government's making a law that says, "Hey, you have to bang someone of the same sex to get married." There's always an option to, I dunno, MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX IF YOU WANT TO. Nobody's forcing anyone to be gay or go to a gay wedding to celebrate a gay wedding. Why do people keep using this argument of being "forced" when nobody is telling them to do anything?

Stright from the mouth, so to speak, anyway.......

GOD, the god issue.
I sometimes have this conversation with conservative christian freinds.. they ask me
"How can you support something God specifically says is immoral?"
I answer: "Because (overlooking the fact that I am bnot a creationist God is a good teacher, a good creator, and I think he (were a supreme god to exixt ect) has ddevised tools for us to find morality, and he teaches us in crafty ways"
They say "Yes, through the bible" to which I reply "no too obvious".
Then I tell them the story I am going to tell you:

When i and my coisen were ten, He shot himself with his father's gun, not knowing what it was. It was a miralce he survived, and afterwards my father thought he should teach my sister and I a lesson about guns.
He brought home his gun from work (my father is a police officer). First he went to my sister, in her room, and he held out the gun (it was not loaded). He told her" touch this gun". She msut have trusted him, he was after all, the father, the moral athority. If he told her to do something, she should do it.
So she touched it.
My father yelled out BOOOM NO! of course she was a kid, and so she was scared (which was the point), he clamed her down and told her waht he wuld later tell me.

Then he took the gun to my room, and asked me the smae thing.
But, though I had not seen or heard of the previus instance, I was not fooled. I knew exactly wahtthat thing was, and why my father carreid it around on duty. I knew exactly what it was for. In the face of an authority figure that, tbeofre, I had allways been too afraid or trusting to rebel, I said no. He hugged me, and told me I made the right choice, that you were never supposed to touch guns, even if He told me to. I learned alot.
I learned that moralty can come from no one else but yourself. I knew that he asked me to do something bad, and thats when I figuered outthat When you know something to be wrong, you dont do it, no matter what anyone else says. The heart determines what is right and wrong, or if notthe heart some portion of soul or soemthing, not authority.

When faced with the notion that god is telling me that being gay is wrong, and that the gays should be treated as wrong doers, I say
"no, I know better. Whether I know because you made me know, or it is something I just know better. I know what right and wrong is, and when you tell me different, you must either wish me to do something wrong, or you want me to take away the above lesson.

Im sorry if my story bored you, i like to tell it.
bottom line for me- Becasue God says somethign in the bible doesnt make it true, and is no basis for morality. That the conservatives have only this argument agiasnt the allowing of gays to marry, proves to me that their argument is flawed,.

[Deacon]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="429374"]*cough* *cough* You know, it's not from YOUR religion. If anything, you stole it from the Jews, and that's assuming that the Romsn and the Greeks and the Pagans didn't have marriage before hand, too.[/quote]
Both marriage and the Jews were around a helluvalong time before both the Romans and the Greeks, and marriage is not unique to Judaism, nor was it a new Abrahamic concept.

As far as "the separation of church and state", I'd like to point out that standards of behavior (morals) can exist without being couched in some particular religion's scriptures. Constitutionally, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Ruling that marriage is a (civil) union between one man and one woman does not in any way establish a religion, though I guess there could be some cults or sects out there that would argue that it may "prohibit the free exercise [of their religion]" depending on their specific doctrines, such as the Mormons. However, the precident seems pretty hard set against such things, as to which the Mormons themselves would attest.



[quote="JarysM";p="429451"]When i and my coisen were ten, He shot himself with his father's gun, not knowing what it was. It was a miralce he survived, and afterwards my father thought he should teach my sister and I a lesson about guns.
He brought home his gun from work (my father is a police officer). First he went to my sister, in her room, and he held out the gun (it was not loaded). He told her" touch this gun". She msut have trusted him, he was after all, the father, the moral athority. If he told her to do something, she should do it.
So she touched it.
My father yelled out BOOOM NO! of course she was a kid, and so she was scared (which was the point), he clamed her down and told her waht he wuld later tell me.

Then he took the gun to my room, and asked me the smae thing.
But, though I had not seen or heard of the previus instance, I was not fooled. I knew exactly wahtthat thing was, and why my father carreid it around on duty. I knew exactly what it was for. In the face of an authority figure that, tbeofre, I had allways been too afraid or trusting to rebel, I said no. He hugged me, and told me I made the right choice, that you were never supposed to touch guns, even if He told me to.[/quote]
That story made me very sad for you and your sister and either anger or pity (I can't tell which...both mixed in, I guess) at your misguided but well-meaning (I'm guessing) father in his absolute failure to teach a lesson with actual value, which surprises me, because I rarely have that kind of emotional response to childhood stories told on forums. How old were you and your sister when this cop-out attempt at a "lesson" was taught? Did any other parents learn that it's incredibly unacceptable to fail to teach your children gun safety and how to appropriately respect and handle firearms if you own them yourself, certainly before they're 10, and especially if they're in law enforcement?

[JarysM]

I think you are misunderstanding the lesson. Gun saftey was the whole point. Apparently my father felt that if he could reinforce the caution (the load noise he made) of not handling firearms, and instill it as a vlaue unchallengable by outside influence (dont touch guns no matter what anyone else says) we would be safe.
So far the lesson has worked. Niether of us have ever irresponsibly handled firearms, nor has it scarred our fragile minds. I feel no trauma when handling gun like objects (paint ball guns or the like) and i recognize the moral decision behind handling a weapon. I can't speak for my sister.
anyway we ahve deviated off topic, I was equating my fathers lesson to a possible intention of God.

Also: I know you allready think Im screwed up, Deacon, I have nothing to prove to you.

[Dr. Tower]

[quote="JudgeMental";p="429348"]
In a society where morality is humanly derived, you'd be absolutely correct. Some morality IS human derived. But those moral lines I draw I believe have been dictated to me by God. I don't like all of them (promiscuity sounds like it could be fun ), but they're there. I believe that some things are built-in (for instance, MOST people would agree that raping and murdering a 6 year old would be horrendous, no matter where they come from), while other things are learned (how to view nudity, for example).
[/quote]

Using your views then, would you vote "yes" on laws that outlawed sex between people who were not married? After all, you believe that is mandated by God, and thus people shouldn't do that and you would be morrally obligated to vote on such a measure.

Personally I believe, due to my faith, that homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that religion has no bearing when it comes to the government. When I attempt to find a logical secular reason to dissallow gay marriages, I find none. Undermine the morality of American families? I don't think it will, and I have heard no argument that even lends credibility to that.

Like I said, religion doesn't belong in government, nor in the crafting of the laws of the government.

And now I present to the forum the wording of Ohio Issue 1, an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that passed on November 2.

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

I would like to point out that this means that if I wanted to become a domestic partner with my fiancée for the year before we become married (so that we can visit each other in the hospital, etc) we would not be able to do so. Also, somebody said that civil unions have wide support, not so in Ohio, civil unions are outlawed here.

[WolfDreamer]

I would like to point out that this means that if I wanted to become a domestic partner with my fiancée for the year before we become married (so that we can visit each other in the hospital, etc) we would not be able to do so. Also, somebody said that civil unions have wide support, not so in Ohio, civil unions are outlawed here.

You are correct Tower, and it's a shame that things are that way. But I would argue that heavy handed amendments like this only became needed because of the insistence of leftist groups trying to force gay marriage on a majority that didn't want it. Its a knee-jerk somewhat irrational response to activist judges trying to re-write law with thier rulings. National polls show that civil unions have the support of the majority; the reasonable, rational thing would be to work towards those instead.

[StruckingFuggle]

Civil Unions are the best solution for a number of reasons. A civil union doesn't step all over the beliefs of those who consider gay marriage immoral. Properly worded they give the same rights as a married couple.

Because "seperate but equal" is seperate and equal, hm?

Both marriage and the Jews were around a helluvalong time before both the Romans and the Greeks, and marriage is not unique to Judaism, nor was it a new Abrahamic concept.

Fair enough. However, that does pretty well still preclude Blaze from saying that marriage is "from" "his" religion, which was the point of that.

Its a knee-jerk somewhat irrational response to activist judges trying to re-write law with thier rulings.

Yeah, because it's not like interpreting the law is their job.

... oh, wait.

[Deacon]

[quote="JarysM";p="429487"]I think you are misunderstanding the lesson. Gun saftey was the whole point. Apparently my father felt that if he could reinforce the caution (the load noise he made) of not handling firearms, and instill it as a vlaue unchallengable by outside influence (dont touch guns no matter what anyone else says) we would be safe.
So far the lesson has worked. Niether of us have ever irresponsibly handled firearms, nor has it scarred our fragile minds.[/quote]
The lesson as you communicated it was to never touch a gun because guns are bad and will kill you simply by touching them, like some sort of high-powered power transformer, not how to responsibly and safely handle one. That's part of the reason why I asked how old you were at the time. Teaching a 3 or 4 year old to handle a weapon isn't, obviously, a perfect idea. Same thing as never crossing the street without an adult as compared to teaching the proper way to cross the street. Perhaps I just took deadpan hyperbole at face value?

Also: I know you allready think Im screwed up, Deacon, I have nothing to prove to you.

Heh, I don't think I've ever said that you were screwed up, at least not any more than any other one of us humans. I don't think that's the case regardless

[Blaze]

Because "seperate but equal" is seperate and equal, hm?

you know, in our chat, I proved to you that that IS the case here, but you still used it as an argument anyway. Did you think I just wouldn't see it?

Human beings are human beings. That cannot be disproved. Therefore, they cannot be held seperately and still be equal. But a marriage/union is an idea. A concept. All ideas are NOT the same, therefore, they SHOULD be held seperate.

If we try some sort of civil rights movement on ideas, then I could very well demand that Creationism be REQUIRED teaching on equal ground with Evolution in all schools. Or perhaps that Pornography be REQUIRED to be made available to minors, since I personally think that there's nothing wrong with it.

Ideas are NOT equal. They MUST be seperate. So stop spewing irrelevant Jargon.

Fair enough. However, that does pretty well still preclude Blaze from saying that marriage is "from" "his" religion, which was the point of that.

Did I, or did I not, SPECIFICALLY say that I meant marriage as it APPLIES to my religion? Oh, that's right. I DID say that. So... you don't read, then?

[Azurain]

You're correct that not all ideas are equal, but you've yet to establish why your interpretation of the term marriage should be the only legally used such term. Isn't it just as bad to have your idea of marriage forced on those who disagree as it would be to have their idea forced on you, except worse as in this case it also infringes on the freedoms of others to do something that in no way whatsoever affects you.

The idea that you would be forced to recognise marriages that you don't want to recognise can be applied in reverse, remember, to the situation we have right now. As it is people are forced to recognise heterosexual marriages as marriages... how is that any better? What about those people who think no marriage is a true marriage unless the bride was a virgin? They're being forced to accept it when a woman who isn't a virgin is married, correct?

Seriously, why is it ok for your personal religious definition of a marriage to be legally mandated but not for other people's interpretations of the term marriage? You can say that the idea of a same sex marriage is incompatable with your view of marriage but that does not change the fact that it is compatable with the views of many on marriage. Right now you're saying "your opinion on marriage can't be allowed to be legal because that would be forcing something on me, but mine can stay legal and to hell with whether or not that's forcing something on you." Hopefully the inconsistency is apparent?

[Blaze]

You're correct that not all ideas are equal, but you've yet to establish why your interpretation of the term marriage should be the only legally used such term. Isn't it just as bad to have your idea of marriage forced on those who disagree as it would be to have their idea forced on you, except worse as in this case it also infringes on the freedoms of others to do something that in no way whatsoever affects you.

Ah, but it DOES affect me. If I someday choose to live in a "married couples" community, I am greatly affected by the inclusion of Gay people to the term "married". Likewise, if a gay couple wishes to start a gay married's therapy group, and I cannot find any other therapy group in my area, and REALLY want one to attend, that couple is greatly affected by the fact that I am just as married as they are.

The idea that you would be forced to recognise marriages that you don't want to recognise can be applied in reverse, remember, to the situation we have right now. As it is people are forced to recognise heterosexual marriages as marriages... how is that any better?

Do you, or do you not recognize that my system specifically solves that. By providing marriage not as a general term, but in specific to different types, people would now have legal recourse to recognize any type of marriage they like while ignoring the others. (Government, of course, would have to recognize all, to be a voice of all people, but I think we can accept that anyway.)

Seriously, why is it ok for your personal religious definition of a marriage to be legally mandated but not for other people's interpretations of the term marriage? You can say that the idea of a same sex marriage is incompatable with your view of marriage but that does not change the fact that it is compatable with the views of many on marriage. Right now you're saying "your opinion on marriage can't be allowed to be legal because that would be forcing something on me, but mine can stay legal and to hell with whether or not that's forcing something on you." Hopefully the inconsistency is apparent?

QUIT SAYING THE SAME DAMN THING THAT ISN'T TRUE! HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY IT?! I AM FOR LEGALIZING ALL MARRIAGES! I MERELY WANT LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE TYPE OF MARRIAGE.

MY SYSTEM ENTAILS:

ALL PEOPLE JOINING GETTING UNION LICENCE, WHICH ARE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED.

CIVIL UNION LICENCES BEING THE REQUIREMENT TO GET ANY OTHER TYPE OF OFFICIAL UNION, ALL WITH THE SAME GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, BUT LEGALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

STRAIGHT COUPLE A MAY HAVE:
A CIVIL UNION LICENCE TYPE A
A MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE FROM CHURCH A.

STRAIGHT COUPLE B MAY HAVE:
A CIVIL UNION LICENCE TYPE A
A CIVIL UNION CERTIFICATE FROM COURTHOUSE B.

GAY COUPLE A MAY HAVE:
A CIVIL UNION LICENCE TYPE B
A MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE FROM CHURCH B.

THEREFORE, BUSINESS A MAY CHOOSE TO RECOGNIZE TYPE A, BUT NOT B, AND VICE VERSA, AND SINCE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING, IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO SO.

Maybe in all caps, you'll finally read it, or at least stop trying to goad me into saying something you can actually reasonably attack.

[WolfDreamer]

The laws around marriage are just a legal realization of the institution of marriage that already existed. "Marriage" already existed as concept, term, and reality. It is not just a "personal religious definition"; its a definition the state was forced to realize by the majority. A majority that continues to exist today. The majority will always have the right to "force" its view on this subject; the same as it has to right to force its opinion on anything it believes.

The simple fact is there already things forced on people everyday; from laws against murder to the laws allowing the goverment to take a higher % of my taxes then the guy next to me just because I make more. It all comes down to your opinion. You, Azurain, feel its wrong to deny gay marriage. The majority of the US feel gay marriage is wrong and civil unions are an acceptable alternative.

By your logic if I felt murder, or rape, or tax evasion, etc etc, was moral then it would be wrong to legally mandate it a crime because the majority would be enforcing its view on me. Hopefully you can see your arguement doesn't hold water?

[EvilPsychoJoe]

[quote="Blaze";p="429585"]
Ah, but it DOES affect me. If I someday choose to live in a "married couples" community, I am greatly affected by the inclusion of Gay people to the term "married". Likewise, if a gay couple wishes to start a gay married's therapy group, and I cannot find any other therapy group in my area, and REALLY want one to attend, that couple is greatly affected by the fact that I am just as married as they are.
[/quote]

Just gonna put my foot in the water here...how does it greatly affect you if a gay married couple chooses to live in a "married" community? They'd be just as married as you might be. If you don't want to live near them, don't move there. That's just as much an option of yours as it is of theirs. But at least you have the option now; taking away their option seems to infringe on their liberties.

And in the other instance: suppose there is no such thing as a gay marriage. So then there'd be no marriage therapy, instead of one, regardless of the "targeted demographic." You'd still be up shit's creek in that situation.

Also, if you subdivided the marriages, couldn't that fall under the realm of discrimination? "Oh, you're straight, you're not allowed at this gay marriage event," and vice versa.

I've got more, but I need to run to work now. So, perhaps later.