Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

IMO, this is a very important and timely topic to discuss. In the US, it's certainly a hot topic right now! I'd love to hold a good discussion on this issue, and it's been discussed on the "Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals" thread, but some people have complained that it's taken over that thread. It's also been discussed on the "marriage" thread, but katya (the thread starter) didn't want it discussed. SO - to honor those feelings, here's a thread that is specifically to discuss the subject of homosexual marriage and related side-issues

This is one of those topics where people can get emotional, so as thread-starter I request that people be considerate of others. PLEASE feel free to vigorously point out perceived errors in a person's opinion, logic, conclusion, deduction, data, etc - but do NOT attack the person! And please do NOT speak for other people - let them speak for themselves. Please do NOT assume a person holds an opinion until they say they do - go ahead and ask them if you're not sure. Let's not stereotype! Let's not hold arguments with imaginary people.

I think it's very valuable to discuss issues with people that hold opposing opinions. Let's go for it! People involved in the discussion - please copy over some posts from the other threads to start us off.

[Rían]

Some good starting posts would be IRex's recent post explaining his views, and Wizard from Milan's article about the judge in California.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Ok, here it goes again

I want to reproduce two phrases from the California court ruling (Judge Kramer)
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,"
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
These sentences are quite obvious and not particularly remarkable to me, but I post them because other people here think otherwise

but please note that it is not me who is triple posting.
I am actually not sure that all this compartimentalization of threads improves clarity.

Separately, "Homosexual marriage" is a misnomer because there is no such a thing as a new type of marriage that is of the homosexual type. I think that the thread should be called "Marriage of same-sex couples". For short "same-sex marriage". I may well have been liable of having called it "gay marriage" before, but it should be clear that it is a marriage exacly like the one among different-sex couples, not a new type of marriage

[Artanis]

Are we talking civil unions or traditional marriage in church? Or both?

[Nurvingiel]

I think all types of marriage that gay people would like to be a part of can be discussed here. So, civil and religiously blessed.

One point of confusion for marriages in general, is Christian priests (I'm pretty sure all, or at least most) are also allowed to give marriage licences ie. preform civil unions. When you're married in a Christian ceremony, the civil union aspect is incorporated into the ceremony. If you were blessed without the civil union, you wouldn't be considered married in the eyes of the law.

Any further points on that we should discuss in Katya's marriage thread, but I wanted to clear that up here because any discussion of marriage can be confusing. You can say marriage to mean civil unioned or married to mean blessed in your church, or both at the same time.

I don't think the term "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" is misleading here, because it means gay people getting married. I don't think it suggests a new sort of marriage.

Onwards, I think people pretty much know what I think on the issue... for clever, well-written, and intelligent posts, read someone else's! Just kidding! Check out my posts in the GLB thread.

I think that including gay people in the institution of marriage (civil unions) would not only be good for marriage, but for society as a whole. I don't think the government should be party to discrimination against gays.
However, I also don't believe churches should be forced to preform ceremonies they don't believe, but I don't think anybody is asking for that here. Unlike the government, churches can choose which couples they believe are fit for marriage no matter what their sexual orientation is. A church would deny marriage to a straight couple they didn't feel was ready for this commitment, but the government will allow any couple to marry.

It's not the business of the government to police people's sex lives, but it is there job to uphold people's rights. This means they will and should protect the rights of minors, (ie. not allowing underaged people to get married). Therefore I see no reason why the government should not allow gay people to get married, and neither does the Canadian government.

I think this is an important step in overcoming discrimination against gay people.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Artanis

Are we talking civil unions or traditional marriage in church? Or both?

I'm talking about traditional marriage, but it's fine to discuss civil unions or any other related topic here. I was just trying to free up those other two threads, because some people had complained that it was taking over the thread.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

but please note that it is not me who is triple posting.

yes, and thanks for moving your quote over here

I am actually not sure that all this compartimentalization of threads improves clarity.

People complained that the subject was taking over the gay/les/bi thread, so I wanted to honor their complaint, because I wanted to talk about the subject some more.

Separately, "Homosexual marriage" is a misnomer because there is no such a thing as a new type of marriage that is of the homosexual type. I think that the thread should be called "Marriage of same-sex couples". For short "same-sex marriage". I may well have been liable of having called it "gay marriage" before, but it should be clear that it is a marriage exacly like the one among different-sex couples, not a new type of marriage

I see what you're saying, and I agree with some of it, but I was just using a popular term. I usually see it called "gay marriage", but I prefer using the term homosexual. "Marriage of same-sex couples" would be fine with me, but I think keeping the title would facilitate searches for it later on.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Wizard from Milan

I want to reproduce two phrases from the California court ruling (Judge Kramer)
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,"
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
These sentences are quite obvious and not particularly remarkable to me, but I post them because other people here think otherwise.

And I repeat my objection for the third time

Does this judge somehow think that the millions of Californians who voted to keep marriage between an adult consenting man and an adult consenting woman voted to do so merely because it's "traditional" and it's always been "done so before"?! This reminds me of the claim from a few Democrats that people that voted for Bush were "stupid".

I believe that if you think you're right, then you should try to persuade people. Give people the dignity of assuming they think about things, and realize that if they disagree, it doesn't have to be because they're "stupid"; perhaps YOU'RE wrong, or perhaps you just have different worldviews. Why is this man the sole arbiter of what is "rational"? (in another quote he said something like he couldn't find a rational reason to deny same-sex marriages.) Bring it before the good people of California for a fair vote! Oh wait, we already did that - and the good people of California voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. I voted this way, and I certainly didn't feel constrained at ALL to vote this way because it was "traditional" or it's always been "done so before"! Sheesh!

The people that fought and died to establish the USA did so to get out from under the tyranny of the few. Judges like this are what people fought and died to get away FROM!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

ok so this is just a subscription post for me, but i do want to comment on one thing: tyranny????

[katya]

Thank you, RÃ*an! Maybe my thread that I don't care about any more will be free now!

My consience (spelling?) tells me I must say something on topic, so... I think that people spend too much time worrying about things, and I think that there's no problem with gay marriage. Well, it could cause problems, but so could a lot of things that no one has any right making illegal. And, this way, I can marry my imaginary female friend and we can share benefits and live more cheaply than if we were alone. And then we can XXX and XXX every night- just kidding! I'm only in it for the money, haha!

[Rían]

You're welcome, katya! I saw that you asked specifically in your opening post that we don't talk about this subject, so I wanted to honor that


Moving some of my comments over from the gay/les/bi thread:

Neither one of us can prove our worldview; our definition of "harmful" is based on our worldview.

Your worldview [I'm speaking to IRex] is agnosticism. And you can't prove you're right. And you base your views on homosexuality on your worldview.

My worldview is Christianity. And I can't prove I'm right. And I base my views on homosexuality on my worldview.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

ok so this is just a subscription post for me, but i do want to comment on one thing: tyranny????

I believe the American colonists felt that British rule was tyrannical. The Boston Tea Party comes to mind ...

The point is that these Americans wanted a say in their own governance, and didn't want to be dictated to by a few people across the pond.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

no i'm talking about your view that the judge is tyrannical, to me a tyrant is someone along the lines of stalin, hitler, henry II, mussolini, Napoleon I, not a judge who acknowledges a simple human right

[Rían]

I'm using tyranny in the sense of absolute rule of one person against the majority's will.

And many good, honest, caring, thoughtful people disagree with you that it's a matter of a "simple human right" To them (and to me), keeping marriage male/female is the same thing as keeping marriage between consenting adults, between not-closely-related people, between those not already married, etc. IOW, we can and should define who can marry, based upon our opinions of what marriage should be for the best of society.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

to quote jean luc picard:
"Who are we to determine the next course of evolution for this people?"

[Rían]

As he says, "who are we to determine"? Why should that judge determine it? Who said that HIS opinion is correct? Why not let the people vote on it?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As he says, "who are we to determine"? Why should that judge determine it? Who said that HIS opinion is correct? Why not let the people vote on it?

that's fine, your view, but if you believe that that particular person can not judge, then also, by default, you can not judge, nor less me, blair, bush, the pope, or anyone else...respection of individuality

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm talking about traditional marriage, but it's fine to discuss civil unions or any other related topic here. I was just trying to free up those other two threads, because some people had complained that it was taking over the thread.

What is a traditional marriage if not a civil union? The civil union aka the marriage anyone can enter in to is the current form of traditional marriage in our respective countries now. The other option is one preformed by a religious institution. This is also traditional marriage.

What is traditional marriage if not those two defenitions?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

that's fine, your view, but if you believe that that particular person can not judge, then also, by default, you can not judge, nor less me, blair, bush, the pope, or anyone else...respection of individuality

So what is your solution, then? Don't let anyone decide anything? Remove all laws? What?

My solution is to let people vote - one person, one vote. It's not perfect - but it's much less subject to abuse, IMO.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

social utopian anarchy (note that i use anarchy in it's correct cntect, the absence of government, not people running round with torches looting, and hitting people on the heads like gandalf did to denethor)