or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Britain Goes the Civil Union Route (Media Says it's Marriage).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Britain Goes the Civil Union Route (Media Says it's Marriage).

post #1 of 113
Thread Starter 

This is interesting.  

 

Headline:  British Government to Legalize Same Sex Marriage.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

LONDON (AP) -- The British government announced Tuesday that it will introduce a bill next year legalizing gay marriage - but banning the Church of England from conducting same-sex ceremonies.

Equalities minister Maria Miller said the legislation would authorize same-sex civil marriages, as well as religious ceremonies if religions decide to "opt in."

 

When I read the headline, I obviously assumed they decided to simply approve gay marriage.  But that's not the case.  Part of the decision is clearly the difference in matters Church and State in the UK as compared to the US.  But reading further and thinking about our recent discussion on civil unions vs. gay marriage, I noticed this:  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

The government does not have the same legal authority over other churches, but hopes that the ban for the Church of England will reassure religious opponents of same-sex marriage that they will not be forced to take part.

 

It also will ensure that religious organizations or ministers who refuse to marry a same-sex couple can't be sued for discrimination.

 

 

What they've really done here is allow civil unions (maybe "civil marriages" if you prefer), which is the solution I advocate in the U.S.  This solves the problem of government redefining marriage, and prevents the possibility of churches getting sued for not participating.   

 

Of course, this does raise an interesting legal question that relates to another discussion on the Kentucky "importance of God in security" law.  That law required the placing of a plaque on the Homeland Security building...one which acknowledged God's role in providing security.  tonton et al argued that this violated or could violate certain people's rights if they refused to participate in the installation of said plaque.  

 

Now, let's assume that we had civil same sex marriage in any particular state for a moment.  Would it be constitutional to impose penalties (disciplinary, civil or criminal) on a public servant who refused to perform a civil same sex marriage on the grounds that it violated his or her 1st Amendment rights?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 113

All marriage legally recognized in the United States is "civil marriage".  You are making a distinction without a difference and keep repeating your nonsense about redefinition when marriage has been fluid and varied in practice and circumstance around the world for millennia. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #3 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

All marriage legally recognized in the United States is "civil marriage". 

 

Yes.  

 

 

Quote:
 You are making a distinction without a difference

 

No.  Did you even read the article?  Britain's law will specifically preclude the possibility of churches facing penalties for not participating.   It separates the religious and civil meanings.  

 

 

Quote:
 and keep repeating your nonsense about redefinition when marriage has been fluid and varied in practice and circumstance around the world for millennia.

 

My nonsense?  Marriage has been between one man and one woman in almost all cultures for millennia.  There are isolated exceptions, though even they aren't (or weren't) exactly fully recognized and marriages equal to traditional marriage.  Ancient China had a sort of domestic partnership, though it's not clear it was equivalent to "marriage".  There are examples from the Roman Empire, but here again those don't really equate and weren't widespread.  Civl law was also considerably different (and sometimes non-existent) during these times.  The bottom line is you can't pretend that there are examples of widespread legal and social acceptance of gay marriage throughout history.  There simply aren't.  

 

Regardless, don't you think the cultural, religious and historical foundations of marriage in Western Civilization relevant here? Heck, we can even add Islamic marriage to that.   In this regard, marriage has had more or less the same definition for 2,000 years.  Yes, I have a problem with government redefining this institution for that reason.  But my concerns go well beyond that.  Here are the points you continue to ignore or simply dismiss:  

 

  • If government does change the definition, on what grounds can it refuse to change it further?  Is the government allowed to define marriage at all?  Can it limit marriage to two people?  Why?  

 

  • How would you address the possibility that churches who refuse to perform same sex ceremonies would face legal action?  Don't scoff at this.  If you told me 5 years ago that the the federal government could require Catholic charities and hospitals to provide free birth control, I'd have laughed you out of the room.   
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 113
"No. Did you even read the article? Britain's law will specifically preclude the possibility of churches facing penalties for not participating. It separates the religious and civil meanings."

Bullshit. Under Britain's law, a marriage performed between two men or two women IN A CHURCH is a legal union. The distinction is that in the States, you would limit same sex unions to ceremonies performed by a magistrate or government official.

No one ever in the history of marriage equality advocacy has ever indicated that anyone in a church would be forced to perform ceremonies. That entire line of argument is a lie designed to spread FUD.
post #5 of 113

Tonton, and BR, how can you be so obtuse while complaining about others not getting it. The Church of England is the official state church of England. The head of that church is the Queen of England. The government of England just exempted their own state church and other churches from discrimination claims that would be pursued by the state if they didn't marry homosexual couples, all while legalizing homosexual marriage.

 

A concern within the U.S. isn't just that homosexual marriage is legal, but whether private enterprises and churches will be forced to operate against their own values when the state fails to provide a proper solution.

 

We've seen this play out already with birth control. If the government wants everyone to have access to reproductive health care, they need only provide it through state controlled and operated hospitals and clinics. Instead we have lawsuits because the government is mandating private providers and religious providers take up the slack.

 

In England, gay marriage will be legal but the state church won't provide the service. The state will have offices and officials who will provide those services though. No one can go to a church and demand to be married and sue.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #6 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Tonton, and BR, how can you be so obtuse while complaining about others not getting it. The Church of England is the official state church of England. The head of that church is the Queen of England. The government of England just exempted their own state church and other churches from discrimination claims that would be pursued by the state if they didn't marry homosexual couples, all while legalizing homosexual marriage.

 

A concern within the U.S. isn't just that homosexual marriage is legal, but whether private enterprises and churches will be forced to operate against their own values when the state fails to provide a proper solution.

 

 

This sounds about right to me. I'm not too fond of the wording that the laws are banning the Church of England because that sounds really harsh but what they are basically saying is that the Church doesn't recognize 'in church' marriages of same sex and won't be performing them. Perhaps the less harsh wording in a separate statement would have been better but the meaning is the same. 

 

Legal partnerships should be what they are and be regardless of different or same gender with all the rights the same. Period. Legal rights should be separate from the whole church issue in my book. And sorry to the GLBT world but if your church says no to gay marriage then that should be that. No law or court case should be allowed to tell a church what is or isn't a proper belief. You have your legal unions and if that isn't enough for you, well history is full of folks that agreed with all but a handful of beliefs and went and started their own church. Perhaps it's time you did the same. Then you can exercise your freedom to belief that being homosexual isn't a sin and they can exercise their right to the belief that it is and everyone can be happy and with the same legal rights. 

post #7 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"No. Did you even read the article? Britain's law will specifically preclude the possibility of churches facing penalties for not participating. It separates the religious and civil meanings."
Bullshit.

 

Are you incapable of discussion without being aggressive and angry?  

 

 

 

Quote:
 Under Britain's law, a marriage performed between two men or two women IN A CHURCH is a legal union

 

Yes.  

 

.

Quote:
The distinction is that in the States, you would limit same sex unions to ceremonies performed by a magistrate or government official.

 

Yes.  But I would go further.  I would also limit hetero marriages in the same manner.  

 

 

 

Quote:
No one ever in the history of marriage equality advocacy has ever indicated that anyone in a church would be forced to perform ceremonies.

 

True, though this was clearly on the mind of officials in Great Britain, as they specifically crafted policy to prevent that from happening.  

 

 

Quote:
That entire line of argument is a lie designed to spread FUD.

 

That is incorrect, but thanks for sharing your thoughts.  I don't wish nor intend to spread fear, uncertainty or doubt.  I do think, however, that there is a very real possibility this could occur in the future, as the law winds it way through the courts.   As I said, a perfect example is found in examining Obamacare.  I don't know anyone who even dreamed that the US Government could mandate that Catholic churches, charities and schools provide free birth control to their employees, (which is a direct violation of their religious beliefs).  But it happened.  All it would take is one lawsuit from a church member who claims that his rights are being violated because his minister won't marry him---or one by a person who is refused membership because he's gay.  

 

Now, do I think that would happen right away?  No, I don't.  I also don't think you'd see immediate challenges to the limitation of marrying only one other person at a time.  But that's another strong possibility.  It's also an argument you have flatly refused to address.  We are changing the definition of marriage based on the reasoning that people should be able to marry whomever they choose, whomever they love, etc.  Correct?  Well, if that's the case, there is absolutely no argument for preventing polygamous marriage.  All I have to do is claim my genetics prevent me from loving only one person.  In fact, I can probably do that right now.  How dare you deny me my right to marry two women and the guy that makes my pizza?  How dare you oppose me having marriage equality?  I demand an end to the bigotry!  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Tonton, and BR, how can you be so obtuse while complaining about others not getting it. The Church of England is the official state church of England. The head of that church is the Queen of England. The government of England just exempted their own state church and other churches from discrimination claims that would be pursued by the state if they didn't marry homosexual couples, all while legalizing homosexual marriage.

 

A concern within the U.S. isn't just that homosexual marriage is legal, but whether private enterprises and churches will be forced to operate against their own values when the state fails to provide a proper solution.

 

We've seen this play out already with birth control. If the government wants everyone to have access to reproductive health care, they need only provide it through state controlled and operated hospitals and clinics. Instead we have lawsuits because the government is mandating private providers and religious providers take up the slack.

 

In England, gay marriage will be legal but the state church won't provide the service. The state will have offices and officials who will provide those services though. No one can go to a church and demand to be married and sue.

 

I don't think they are being obtuse.  What they are is utterly hellbent on full and complete acceptance of same sex marriage.  They don't care what the pitfalls are, whose rights might be violated, or about any of the unintended consequences.  They view anyone who opposes gay marriage or even expresses concerns about it as a bigot, or an idiot, or both.  

 

You've got to hand it to the Left...they really are a committed group.  They want what they want, and will do just about anything to get it.  They want free, unlimited birth control and abortion.  And you and your church are going to pay for it.  They get to make the decisions, so get used to it.  Why?  Because f*** you, that's why.   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

This sounds about right to me. I'm not too fond of the wording that the laws are banning the Church of England because that sounds really harsh but what they are basically saying is that the Church doesn't recognize 'in church' marriages of same sex and won't be performing them. Perhaps the less harsh wording in a separate statement would have been better but the meaning is the same. 

 

The Church wasn't going to be performing them anyway.  It's just a way of avoiding legal liability in the future.  

 

 

Quote:

 

 

Legal partnerships should be what they are and be regardless of different or same gender with all the rights the same.

 

 

I agree.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Period. Legal rights should be separate from the whole church issue in my book.

 

I'll go further.  Government should not be redefining that which is more than a religious institution, but also a cultural and societal one.  

 


Quote:
And sorry to the GLBT world but if your church says no to gay marriage then that should be that. No law or court case should be allowed to tell a church what is or isn't a proper belief.

 

That's exactly what's happening now with birth control.   And tonton et al think that it happening with this issue is fantasy.  #OKThen.  

 

 

Quote:
You have your legal unions and if that isn't enough for you, well history is full of folks that agreed with all but a handful of beliefs and went and started their own church. Perhaps it's time you did the same. Then you can exercise your freedom to belief that being homosexual isn't a sin and they can exercise their right to the belief that it is and everyone can be happy and with the same legal rights.

 

I'm afraid that relies on a false assumption, though I see your point.  Most committed gay rights advocates want more than just equal legal rights and the elimination of hate crimes, discrimination, etc.  They want full and complete societal acceptance of homosexuality in our society.  They want to force others to conform to their views.  They want no one to make any moral judgement about any other person's behavior.  This includes more than just working towards tolerance, but crossing over into outright advocacy and indoctrination.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 113
The religious act of getting married and the civil act of becoming married is already separate in the UK. There are plenty of places offering secular weddings - in fact, the vast majority of weddings that I go to aren't performed in a church. Getting married in a church has no legal meaning beyond the piece of paper that you sign at the end.

The new law isn't about civil partnerships - that's something that's already legal in the UK. The new law is about marriage and all of the civil benefits that marriage entails.

It's a shame that the Church of England (and some other religious organisations) feels the need to be so bigoted on this matter. Let's not forget the the Church of England was formed because of Henry VIII's desire to change England's marriage laws.
post #10 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

The religious act of getting married and the civil act of becoming married is already separate in the UK. There are plenty of places offering secular weddings - in fact, the vast majority of weddings that I go to aren't performed in a church.

 

So? 

 

Quote:
 Getting married in a church has no legal meaning beyond the piece of paper that you sign at the end.

 

That is not true, because that marriage is recognized by the State.  

 

Quote:
The new law isn't about civil partnerships - that's something that's already legal in the UK. The new law is about marriage and all of the civil benefits that marriage entails.

 

What benefits does marriage offer beyond those offered by a civil union?  

 

 

 

Quote:
It's a shame that the Church of England (and some other religious organisations) feels the need to be so bigoted on this matter. Let's not forget the the Church of England was formed because of Henry VIII's desire to change England's marriage laws.

 

No, it's a shame that you assume their opposition is born of bigotry.  Typical.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Bullshit.

Are you incapable of discussion without being aggressive and angry?  
Apologies.

Quote:
Quote:
 Under Britain's law, a marriage performed between two men or two women IN A CHURCH is a legal union

Yes.  
So in other words, Britain didn't go the "civil union route". Not to mention, the union in Britain is still called a "marriage" by name.
Quote:
Quote:
The distinction is that in the States, you would limit same sex unions to ceremonies performed by a magistrate or government official.

Yes.  But I would go further.  I would also limit hetero marriages in the same manner.  
I agree with such a solution. However, do you think the religious conservatives would accept that? What can we do to gain their acceptance in the matter?
Quote:
Quote:
No one ever in the history of marriage equality advocacy has ever indicated that anyone in a church would be forced to perform ceremonies.

True, though this was clearly on the mind of officials in Great Britain, as they specifically crafted policy to prevent that from happening.  
I'm not against such a limit of liability in the law.
Quote:
Quote:
That entire line of argument is a lie designed to spread FUD.

That is incorrect, but thanks for sharing your thoughts.  I don't wish nor intend to spread fear, uncertainty or doubt.  I do think, however, that there is a very real possibility this could occur in the future, as the law winds it way through the courts.   As I said, a perfect example is found in examining Obamacare.  I don't know anyone who even dreamed that the US Government could mandate that Catholic churches, charities and schools provide free birth control to their employees, (which is a direct violation of their religious beliefs).  But it happened.
Because matters of health trump matters of religion (or should). But this is also a strawman argument. these issues are not the same.
Quote:
All it would take is one lawsuit from a church member who claims that his rights are being violated because his minister won't marry him---or one by a person who is refused membership because he's gay.  
Nope, he would choose a different minister. Right now, there are churches that refuse membership to homosexuals. Where are all the lawsuits you want us to fear?
Quote:
Now, do I think that would happen right away?  No, I don't.  I also don't think you'd see immediate challenges to the limitation of marrying only one other person at a time.
Ah yes, the slippery slope argument.
Quote:
But that's another strong possibility.  It's also an argument you have flatly refused to address.  We are changing the definition of marriage based on the reasoning that people should be able to marry whomever they choose, whomever they love, etc.  Correct?  Well, if that's the case, there is absolutely no argument for preventing polygamous marriage.
Completely untrue. There are plenty of scientific arguments against allowing polygamous marriage.
Quote:
All I have to do is claim my genetics prevent me from loving only one person.  In fact, I can probably do that right now.  How dare you deny me my right to marry two women and the guy that makes my pizza?  How dare you oppose me having marriage equality?  I demand an end to the bigotry!  
No, there's no scientific evidence that such a proclivity exists, and even if there was, there is plenty of scientific evidence (unlike the case with homosexuality) that social disadvantages outweigh the desire to marry more than one person. However (and this is the important part), if in the future there is evidence that the social consequences of polygamy would be minimal, then perhaps yes, it may some day become an accepted activity. And if it does, assuming science supports it... Then... So what? Things change. Society changes. Deal with it.
post #12 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is not true, because that marriage is recognized by the State.

You're an expert on English law? You make it sound like you are.
Quote:
What benefits does marriage offer beyond those offered by a civil union?

Pension provisions, inheritance, etc. Not nessaccary the law itself but many contracts specifically state "marriage" rather than "marriage or civil partnership".
Quote:
No, it's a shame that you assume their opposition is born of bigotry.  Typical.  

If you're against people being happy because of a set of arbitrary 2000 year old rules, you're a bigot. Sorry.
post #13 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Apologies.

 

Accepted.  

 

 

Quote:
So in other words, Britain didn't go the "civil union route". Not to mention, the union in Britain is still called a "marriage" by name.

 

I suppose you could look it like that.  But you have to admit that headline is somewhat misleading.  

 

 

Quote:
I agree with such a solution. However, do you think the religious conservatives would accept that? What can we do to gain their acceptance in the matter?

 

I don't think they would at first.  But, one could probably focus on the benefits of not redefining marriage itself.  

 

Quote:
I'm not against such a limit of liability in the law.

 

Good.  I hope you're serious.  

 

Quote:
Because matters of health trump matters of religion (or should). But this is also a strawman argument. these issues are not the same.

 

Matters of health do not trump matters of religion...not at all.  Like it or not, Christian Scientists have a right to refuse medical treatment (whether they can for their children or not is another matter).  As for the "strawman," how can you be serious?  Both situations would (and do) force a church or religious organization to do something that violates their beliefs, or face stiff penalties.  Come on.  

 

Quote:
Nope, he would choose a different minister. Right now, there are churches that refuse membership to homosexuals. Where are all the lawsuits you want us to fear?

 

How do you know what he would do?  That's what you would do.  And the reason there aren't lawsuits is because there is law requiring gay marriage to be legal, thereby conferring equal rights under the law.  Surely you can see how this could serve as the basis of a lawsuit?  

 

 

Quote:
Ah yes, the slippery slope argument.

 

Yes, it is...but it's not slippery slope fallacy.  Why do you refuse to address the central point of justification for changing the law? 

 

Quote:
Completely untrue. There are plenty of scientific arguments against allowing polygamous marriage.

 

Go ahead.  Make them.  

 

Quote:
No, there's no scientific evidence that such a proclivity exists, and even if there was, there is plenty of scientific evidence (unlike the case with homosexuality) that social disadvantages outweigh the desire to marry more than one person.

 

There is no scientific evidence that people aren't naturally monogamous?  lol.gif   What are the social disadvantages, and how do you plan to use them to deny polygamists equal rights?  

 

 

Quote:
However (and this is the important part), if in the future there is evidence that the social consequences of polygamy would be minimal, then perhaps yes, it may some day become an accepted activity. And if it does, assuming science supports it... Then... So what? Things change. Society changes. Deal with it.

 

What the hell are the "social consequences?"  Why do you care if I have two wives and a big strong husband to fix things around the house?  Isn't a child better off with three or four loving parents instead of two?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 113

SDW, I see your slippery slope argument and reverse it. 20100102.gif

 

Fun aside--I'll go further than tonton, however, and welcome legal polygamy. I, too, would like to hear about these alleged scientific disadvantages.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #15 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW, I see your slippery slope argument and reverse it. 20100102.gif

 

Fun aside--I'll go further than tonton, however, and welcome legal polygamy. I, too, would like to hear about these alleged scientific disadvantages.

 

 

Uh, my "slippery slope" has a key difference:  No one can explain why we wouldn't slide down it.  You yourself have acknowledged that these concerns make gay marriage a very imperfect solution.  Your conclusion has been "damn the torpedos, we should do it anyway."   

 

Oh, and as for polygamy:  Should there be a limit on how many people one can legally marry?  Can I list 57 spouses on my tax return?  If there is a limit, what should it be, and what is the justification for that number?  There are many practical concerns here to say the least.  But once again, damn the torpedos!  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Uh, my "slippery slope" has a key difference:  No one can explain why we wouldn't slide down it.  You yourself have acknowledged that these concerns make gay marriage a very imperfect solution.  Your conclusion has been "damn the torpedos, we should do it anyway."   

 

Oh, and as for polygamy:  Should there be a limit on how many people one can legally marry?  Can I list 57 spouses on my tax return?  If there is a limit, what should it be, and what is the justification for that number?  There are many practical concerns here to say the least.  But once again, damn the torpedos!  

 

It's a matter of equality. Currently we have a system where some people in society are allowed to marry the person that they love and some people can't. 

 

In most western societies, no-one can marry more than one person and that's why the slippery slope argument is silly. Equal marriage isn't about expanding rights but simply levelling the playing field.

post #17 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

It's a matter of equality. Currently we have a system where some people in society are allowed to marry the person that they love and some people can't. 

 

I agree.  That's why we should have civil unions.  It provides equal legal rights without redefining marriage.  I don't even care if EVERYONE has a civil union and then, if wanted, a "marriage" performed.  

 

 

Quote:
In most western societies, no-one can marry more than one person and that's why the slippery slope argument is silly.

 

You're arguing against your own position now.  The entire point is there is no justification presented for preventing marriage to more than one person.  Why is that not a violation of people's rights?  Don't you think a person is more likely to love more than one person than be gay, statistically speaking?  Once you say anyone can marry anyone he chooses, you remove the rationale for defining marriage at all.  Once you get there, what is "marriage?"  What does it even mean?  If I'm married to one woman, and you're married to 2 women and a man, how are those even remotely comparable?  

 

 

 

Quote:
Equal marriage isn't about expanding rights but simply levelling the playing field.

 

If that's what you wanted, you'd support civil unions.  The fact is that for many, this is not about equal legal rights.  It's about forcing others to change their views.  It's about forcing the majority to allow the minority to redefine an institution that, in most societies, (cough) goes back thousands of years.  It's about creating a society that does not make any judgements on any kind of behavior.  It's about forcing people to socially accept gay marriage and gay relationships.  It's about promoting not just tolerance, but homosexuality itself.   Were it about legal equality and social tolerance, the gay rights movement and Left in general would not be running around people like me bigots.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 113

Separate but equal.  Hmm, where have we heard that before?  Oh yeah, from bigots.  You're not fooling anyone, SDW.  If you think that "redefining marriage" is going to cause some sort of societal calamity, it's your burden to prove that assertion.  Until then, you are denying equal rights with a very, very flimsy excuse.

 

Specifically, what harm will come to pass by "redefining marriage"?  

 

 

 

Quote:
It's about promoting not just tolerance, but homosexuality itself.

From dictionary.com: tolerance - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, racereligionnationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

 

It is fair, objective, and permissive to pursue marriage equality.  It is not fair to attempt a "separate but equal" solution.


Edited by BR - 1/4/13 at 4:50pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #19 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Uh, my "slippery slope" has a key difference:  No one can explain why we wouldn't slide down it.  

Burden of proof is on you, not me, buddy.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Uh, my "slippery slope" has a key difference:  No one can explain why we wouldn't slide down it.  

Burden of proof is on you, not me, buddy.

I can't wait for his reply! Ooooo! It's that slippery slope!lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #21 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Separate but equal.  Hmm, where have we heard that before?  Oh yeah, from bigots.  You're not fooling anyone, SDW.  If you think that "redefining marriage" is going to cause some sort of societal calamity, it's your burden to prove that assertion.  Until then, you are denying equal rights with a very, very flimsy excuse.

Specifically, what harm will come to pass by "redefining marriage"?  



From dictionary.com: tolerance - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, racereligionnationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

It is fair, objective, and permissive to pursue marriage equality.  It is not fair to attempt a "separate but equal" solution.

Thanks for proving my point. You and the rest of the lefty loons continue call anyone who oppose gay marriage for ANY reason a bigot. As for me, I am not necessarily arguing for separate but equal. I'm saying that it may come down to EVERYONE getting a civil union.

By the way, I've already addressed what harm comes from redefining the institution. It had the very real potential of rendering the term meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Burden of proof is on you, not me, buddy.

I see. So the burden of proof is not on the person who wishes to redefine a millennia-old institution. #OKTHEN

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I can't wait for his reply! Ooooo! It's that slippery slope!lol.gif

Yes, jimmac, it is. It's a very slippery slope, and one that you and yours refuse to even address. You have also not addressed the justification for the government redefining a societal foundation...one that pre-dates that gov's existence.

These concerns are why civil unions (again, perhaps for everyone) are the perfect solution. It protects the definition of marriage, and grants equal legal rights.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It had the very real potential of rendering the term meaningless.

What does this mean?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #23 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Separate but equal.  Hmm, where have we heard that before?  Oh yeah, from bigots.  You're not fooling anyone, SDW.  If you think that "redefining marriage" is going to cause some sort of societal calamity, it's your burden to prove that assertion.  Until then, you are denying equal rights with a very, very flimsy excuse.

Specifically, what harm will come to pass by "redefining marriage"?  



From dictionary.com: tolerance - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, racereligionnationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

It is fair, objective, and permissive to pursue marriage equality.  It is not fair to attempt a "separate but equal" solution.

Thanks for proving my point. You and the rest of the lefty loons continue call anyone who oppose gay marriage for ANY reason a bigot. As for me, I am not necessarily arguing for separate but equal. I'm saying that it may come down to EVERYONE getting a civil union.

By the way, I've already addressed what harm comes from redefining the institution. It had the very real potential of rendering the term meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Burden of proof is on you, not me, buddy.

I see. So the burden of proof is not on the person who wishes to redefine a millennia-old institution. #OKTHEN

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I can't wait for his reply! Ooooo! It's that slippery slope!lol.gif

Yes, jimmac, it is. It's a very slippery slope, and one that you and yours refuse to even address. You have also not addressed the justification for the government redefining a societal foundation...one that pre-dates that gov's existence.

These concerns are why civil unions (again, perhaps for everyone) are the perfect solution. It protects the definition of marriage, and grants equal legal rights.

 

Quote:

You and the rest of the lefty loons

You are so much more out there from reality. Much more than I previously thought. Do you really believe this stuff? Really?

 

 

Quote:


Yes, jimmac, it is. It's a very slippery slope, and one that you and yours refuse to even address. You have also not addressed the justification for the government redefining a societal foundation...one that pre-dates that gov's existence.
 

You have yet to tell me what's so wrong with redefinition. No one's saying get rid of marriage. If they had your position would make sense. They're redefining what's Incorporated into the idea of marriage. Men and women still get married. That hasn't changed and this isn't threatening to make that change happen. So your ire doesn't make any sense........unless of course you have a prejudice.


Edited by jimmac - 1/5/13 at 8:10am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #24 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

What does this mean?

 

 

I've already explained that...several times.  Your inability or unwillingness to understand is not my problem.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

You are so much more out there from reality. Much more than I previously thought. Do you really believe this stuff? Really?

 

That BR is a lefty loon?  Uh, yeah.  Pretty sure I do.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
You have yet to tell me what's so wrong with redefinition.

 

I did.  

 

Quote:
No one's saying get rid of marriage

 

I know. 

 

 

 

Quote:
If they had your position would make sense.

 

I explained why i think it may lead to the term and institution becoming meaningless.  I understand that is not the intent.  

 

 

Quote:
They're redefining what's Incorporated into the idea of marriage

 

Yes, and that may lead to the unintended consequences I've described.  In fact, I think it's likely.  

 

 

Quote:
Men and women still get married.

 

Yes, jimmac...but what will that mean?  Does marriage still exist if you can "marry" 13 people in 5 states?  

 

 

Quote:
That hasn't changed and this isn't threatening to make that change happen.

 

Yes, it is...just not right now.  I think you should consider the future.  For example, what happens when a class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all those who have been denied the right to polygamous marriage?  After all, they could easily use the same argument the gay community does...that their behavior is biologically-based.  On what grounds do you stop further redefinition at that point?  Or, do you?  And if you don't, then are there any limits on how many people can get married?  Can I marry 2 people?  Or 10?  Or 100?  

 

Quote:
So your ire doesn't make any sense........

 

My ire?  I'm not angry at all.  I simply think that civil unions are a better way to achieve equal legal rights for gays.   

 

 

Quote:
unless of course you have a prejudice.

 

Just can't help yourself, can you?  If you stop and consider my argument, you'd realize that whether or not you agree with it, it's not based on any moral or religious objection to homosexuality, nor is it based on "prejudice."   My position is based on my desire for equal legal rights for gays, preserving the cultural and societal institution of marriage, and the wish to avoid forcing people to accept others' values.    

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 113
No one is ever forcing someone to accept someone else's values. If you think gay sex is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to have it. If you think gay marriage is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to marry someone of the same sex.

Now if what you REALLY want is the right to force YOUR values on someone else, then to that I believe I can rightfully object.
post #26 of 113

SDW, still not explicit about what the real harms would be.  He continues to be vague about "rendering terms meaningless" and "preserving institutions", but fails to provide any details or evidence for his positions.  Shocking.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #27 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No one is ever forcing someone to accept someone else's values. 

 

That is false.  People who oppose gay marriage for any reason are absolutely vilified.  This discussion is proof positive of that fact.  This goes back to what the gay rights agenda is really about.  It's not about rights...it's about forcing acceptance on society as a whole.  

 

 

Quote:
If you think gay sex is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to have it. If you think gay marriage is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to marry someone of the same sex.

 

Irrelevant.  

 

 

Quote:
Now if what you REALLY want is the right to force YOUR values on someone else, then to that I believe I can rightfully object.

 

Absolutely not true.  In fact, my values are that I have no objection to those who are in gay relationships whatsoever.  I don't consider it morally wrong, nor I am convinced that my faith considers homosexual acts a sin.  In fact, I want gays to have equal legal rights, from being subject to the same tax laws, to rights-of-survivorship, to medical visitations, etc.  

 

What I object to is your mission to redefine marriage.  Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.  It is a pillar of almost every society that has existed in the last 3,000 years.  That is what marriage is.  Whether you like it or not, redefining it doesn't just redefine it for gays.  It redefines it for everyone.  And it won't stop there.  That is what you apparently don't care about.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

What does this mean?

 

 

I've already explained that...several times.  Your inability or unwillingness to understand is not my problem.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

You are so much more out there from reality. Much more than I previously thought. Do you really believe this stuff? Really?

 

That BR is a lefty loon?  Uh, yeah.  Pretty sure I do.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
You have yet to tell me what's so wrong with redefinition.

 

I did.  

 

Quote:
No one's saying get rid of marriage

 

I know. 

 

 

 

Quote:
If they had your position would make sense.

 

I explained why i think it may lead to the term and institution becoming meaningless.  I understand that is not the intent.  

 

 

Quote:
They're redefining what's Incorporated into the idea of marriage

 

Yes, and that may lead to the unintended consequences I've described.  In fact, I think it's likely.  

 

 

Quote:
Men and women still get married.

 

Yes, jimmac...but what will that mean?  Does marriage still exist if you can "marry" 13 people in 5 states?  

 

 

Quote:
That hasn't changed and this isn't threatening to make that change happen.

 

Yes, it is...just not right now.  I think you should consider the future.  For example, what happens when a class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all those who have been denied the right to polygamous marriage?  After all, they could easily use the same argument the gay community does...that their behavior is biologically-based.  On what grounds do you stop further redefinition at that point?  Or, do you?  And if you don't, then are there any limits on how many people can get married?  Can I marry 2 people?  Or 10?  Or 100?  

 

Quote:
So your ire doesn't make any sense........

 

My ire?  I'm not angry at all.  I simply think that civil unions are a better way to achieve equal legal rights for gays.   

 

 

Quote:
unless of course you have a prejudice.

 

Just can't help yourself, can you?  If you stop and consider my argument, you'd realize that whether or not you agree with it, it's not based on any moral or religious objection to homosexuality, nor is it based on "prejudice."   My position is based on my desire for equal legal rights for gays, preserving the cultural and societal institution of marriage, and the wish to avoid forcing people to accept others' values.    

This entire post is hokum.  You have absolutely no proof or evidence that this would change the state of hetero marriage at all.

 

So in the end you supply zero proof of your argument. The ideas you post are so wild and unlikely it's laughable. In other words you feel this way just because you belong to a particular mind set that's  intransigent. Sad, backward, and out of date. Also once again you stoop to calling people names ( " That BR is a lefty loon " ).

 

You have told me nothing to support your argument SDW. No links, no studies, nothing.1oyvey.gif

 

Pathetic. This attitude is what's wrong with the attitude of the ultra conservative these days and why they shouldn't be making decisions for the rest of us. They believe that way just because.1rolleyes.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #29 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No one is ever forcing someone to accept someone else's values. 

 

That is false.  People who oppose gay marriage for any reason are absolutely vilified. 

Vilified? As much as people supporting gay marriage are vilified by the people who oppose it? Not even close.

Quote:
This discussion is proof positive of that fact.  This goes back to what the gay rights agenda is really about.  It's not about rights...it's about forcing acceptance on society as a whole.

Bullshit. It's about allowing freedom to society as a whole. You have no right to object to what I do. I'm not forcing your acceptance of what I do. I'm forcing your recognition of my freedom to do so. You call that acceptance, and that's where you're wrong.

 

Quote:

 

Quote:
If you think gay sex is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to have it. If you think gay marriage is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to marry someone of the same sex.

 

Irrelevant.  

Like hell it's irrelevant. It shows that you're not being forced to do anything that is against your personal values.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Now if what you REALLY want is the right to force YOUR values on someone else, then to that I believe I can rightfully object.

 

Absolutely not true.  In fact, my values are that I have no objection to those who are in gay relationships whatsoever.  I don't consider it morally wrong, nor I am convinced that my faith considers homosexual acts a sin.  In fact, I want gays to have equal legal rights, from being subject to the same tax laws, to rights-of-survivorship, to medical visitations, etc.  

 

What I object to is your mission to redefine marriage.  Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.  It is a pillar of almost every society that has existed in the last 3,000 years.  That is what marriage is.  Whether you like it or not, redefining it doesn't just redefine it for gays.  It redefines it for everyone.  And it won't stop there.  That is what you apparently don't care about.

You're right. I don't care about redefinition of marriage, as long as there are arguments for it. That's where you're missing the point. There are arguments balanced in favor of redefining marriage as a union of love between two people, instead of a union (leaving out love) between a man and a woman. It's time to accept that redefinition, since it makes sense.

 

Your idiotic slippery slope argument is only relevant as long as there are arguments balanced in favor of the next redefinition that you fear. And when that time comes, so what? If it never comes, then fine. There's nothing to fear unless what you fear is progress. Or... it can easily be assumed... that despite your protestations, you indeed have some duplicity in your motives.

post #30 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This entire post is hokum. 

Whatever you say.
Quote:
You have absolutely no proof or evidence that this would change the state of hetero marriage at all.

How does one provide proof of a prediction or concern?
Quote:
So in the end you supply zero proof of your argument. The ideas you post are so wild and unlikely it's laughable. In other words you feel this way just because you belong to a particular mind set that's  intransigent. Sad, backward, and out of date. Also once again you stoop to calling people names ( " That BR is a lefty loon " ).

You have told me nothing to support your argument SDW. No links, no studies, nothing.1oyvey.gif

Pathetic. This attitude is what's wrong with the attitude of the ultra conservative these days and why they shouldn't be making decisions for the rest of us. They believe that way just because.1rolleyes.gif

Again, it's a concern that I've explained. If you feel it doesn't make sense, well, that's up to you. That being said, your comment about "ultra conservatives " is far off base, as I am nothing of the kind. An "ultra conservative" does not support civil unions, nor does he think that civil unins for EVERYONE might be the way to go. Surcharge person bases his opposition to gay marriage and gay rights on things like his faith. I don't.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Vilified? As much as people supporting gay marriage are vilified by the people who oppose it? Not even close.

I disagree with that entirely.
Quote:
Bullshit. It's about allowing freedom to society as a whole. You have no right to object to what I do. I'm not forcing your acceptance of what I do. I'm forcing your recognition of my freedom to do so. You call that acceptance, and that's where you're wrong.

I am referring to the forced acceptance and embrace of gay rights, even the gay rights agenda. Go into a school or corporate America and see what happens if you don't embrace said ideas. You'll practically be signed up for rehab. As for what you do, I tend to agree. Unless it affects me...redefining marriage does.
Quote:
Like hell it's irrelevant. It shows that you're not being forced to do anything that is against your personal values.

I see. So our own personal views on the propriety of gay relations should be used to determine public policy? Isn't that something you're supposed to be against?
Quote:
You're right. I don't care about redefinition of marriage, as long as there are arguments for it. That's where you're missing the point. There are arguments balanced in favor of redefining marriage as a union of love between two people, instead of a union (leaving out love) between a man and a woman. It's time to accept that redefinition, since it makes sense.

Marriage is about more than love, and you know it. In fact, there is nothing in current law that stops gay people from loving each other. This discussion is about legal rights. You want those through the redefinition of an ancient cultural tradition. I want them through civil unions, even if that means civil unions for all. Funny, now you're the one arguing that the state has a role in who we love. Interesting.

Quote:
Your idiotic slippery slope argument is only relevant as long as there are arguments balanced in favor of the next redefinition that you fear. And when that time comes, so what? If it never comes, then fine. There's nothing to fear unless what you fear is progress. Or... it can easily be assumed... that despite your protestations, you indeed have some duplicity in your motives.

Future consequences are exactly the point. I'm fact, your little screed sums up the "Damn the Torpedos!" mindset perfectly. Why worry about what happens next? You want gay marriage, and nothing else matters. Why worry about precedent? Lets just do what we want...right now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


I disagree with that entirely.
I am referring to the forced acceptance and embrace of gay rights, even the gay rights agenda. Go into a school or corporate America and see what happens if you don't embrace said ideas. You'll practically be signed up for rehab. As for what you do, I tend to agree. Unless it affects me...redefining marriage does.

How does it affect you?  Unless you are gay and in a relationship that you don't want to turn into official marriage, or some sort of self-loathing homosexual that doesn't want his true feelings legitimized, I don't see how.  Since I don't think it's either of those two options, I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect you at all.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #33 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This entire post is hokum. 

Whatever you say.
Quote:
You have absolutely no proof or evidence that this would change the state of hetero marriage at all.

How does one provide proof of a prediction or concern?
Quote:
So in the end you supply zero proof of your argument. The ideas you post are so wild and unlikely it's laughable. In other words you feel this way just because you belong to a particular mind set that's  intransigent. Sad, backward, and out of date. Also once again you stoop to calling people names ( " That BR is a lefty loon " ).

You have told me nothing to support your argument SDW. No links, no studies, nothing.1oyvey.gif

Pathetic. This attitude is what's wrong with the attitude of the ultra conservative these days and why they shouldn't be making decisions for the rest of us. They believe that way just because.1rolleyes.gif

Again, it's a concern that I've explained. If you feel it doesn't make sense, well, that's up to you. That being said, your comment about "ultra conservatives " is far off base, as I am nothing of the kind. An "ultra conservative" does not support civil unions, nor does he think that civil unins for EVERYONE might be the way to go. Surcharge person bases his opposition to gay marriage and gay rights on things like his faith. I don't.

 

Quote:

How does one provide proof of a prediction or concern?
 

 

 

Especially when it's based on an age old prejudice.1wink.gif

 

Predictions if acurate have to be based on proof or evidence to be valid. Otherwise they're like the idea the world is going to end because a Mayan calendar ended.1wink.gif

 

In other words they're worthless predictions.

 

Do you see a common theme here when I'm replying to you about these issues on different threads (  proof /  evidence )?

 

In my book anyone who bases their ideas about government on a prejudice isn't dealing with reality and shouldn't be making decisions for the rest of us. I'm sure those ultra conservative factions don't see themselves that way either.


Edited by jimmac - 1/5/13 at 4:53pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How does it affect you?  Unless you are gay and in a relationship that you don't want to turn into official marriage, or some sort of self-loathing homosexual that doesn't want his true feelings legitimized, I don't see how.  Since I don't think it's either of those two options, I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect you at all.

 

Redefining and possibly harming a cultural pillar and tradition harms us all.  The potential destruction of marriage as an institution harms us all, just as the breakdown of the nuclear family has harmed us all.  

 

Let me make this simple, though:  I could probably support gay marriage if there was a real answer to the slippery slope problem I outlined.  But everything I see and everything I know about the secular-progressive left tells me there isn't an answer.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that the next step won't be a push for polygamous marriage.  Why?  Because it's the same reasoning...love who you want.  And if you love you want, why shouldn't you be allowed to "marry" him or her?  

 

I'll come back to it...my concerns are the slippery slope, and the altering of the institution itself.  This is why I think civil unions (again, even if for everyone) are the way to go.  But I suspect that doesn't satisfy you or any other pro-gay marriage individual.  That's because, as I posted earlier, this isn't about legal rights to many gays and gay rights groups.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Especially when it's based on an age old prejudice.1wink.gif

 

Just can't help yourself, hmm?  

 

 

Quote:

Predictions if acurate have to be based on proof or evidence to be valid. Otherwise they're like the idea the world is going to end because a Mayan calendar ended.1wink.gif

 

In other words they're worthless predictions.

 

Do you see a common theme here when I'm replying to you about these issues on different threads (  proof /  evidence )?

 

jimmac, I'm simply expressing my concern about what may happen to marriage.  Given the history of the secular-progressive left, I think a push (eventually) for polygamous marriage is likely to occur.  There is no data available here, on either side.  You're saying you don't think it's likely, and I'm saying I do.  The arguments are somewhat anecdotal and subjective.  For example, I've explained that one reason I think a push for polygamous marriage is likely is that the reasoning that would be used is the same as the reasoning used for today's push for gay marriage.   Do you care to address that, or continue ignoring it?  

 

Also, a few other questions:  

 

1)  Would you support polygamous marriage?  Why or why not?  

2)  If not, on what grounds would you deny the "right" of marriage to more than one person?  

3)  Should there be a limit on how many people one can marry, or not?  What should the limit be?  On what grounds is it decided?  

 

 

Quote:
In my book anyone who bases their ideas about government on a prejudice isn't dealing with reality and shouldn't be making decisions for the rest of us. 

 

In principle, I agree.  But there are a lot of caveats to that statement.  Who decides what's prejudiced?  Why Is someone who is prejudiced also "not dealing with reality?"  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
I'm sure those ultra conservative factions don't see themselves that way either.

 

To whom top you refer, specifically?  Which beliefs is someone allowed to hold in order to be in office?  Which beliefs are forbidden?  Who decides?  Are all devout Christians banned from office?  What about devout Muslims, who oppose homosexuality even more fervently?  Should we have an ideological purity/diversity test for our officials?  Seems to me someone hasn't thought this out.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 113
"Harming"?

You claim you're not a bigot. Then you say "harming". Liar.
post #36 of 113

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Let me make this simple, though:  I could probably support gay marriage if there was a real answer to the slippery slope problem I outlined.  But everything I see and everything I know about the secular-progressive left tells me there isn't an answer.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that the next step won't be a push for polygamous marriage.  Why?  Because it's the same reasoning...love who you want.  And if you love you want, why shouldn't you be allowed to "marry" him or her? 

There is a real answer to the asinine slippery slope argument you mention.

 

Change only comes about when there is a real, compelling argument for the change that overcomes arguments against it. That's what we're seeing here. The arguments in support of gay marriage are stronger than the arguments against it.

 

If you think there's no way the arguments in support of polygamous marriage will ever be stronger than the arguments against it, then you have nothing to fear from the slippery slope.

 

If, on the other hand, some time in the future, the arguments in favor of polygamous marriage are compelling enough, then who are you to stop that from happening based on what you believe today, not on what you learn in the future.

 

You're simply a fear mongerer.

 

FUD against same sex marriage is all you're spreading.

 

But there's really nothing to fear.

 

Unless you're lying and you're really a homophobe.

post #37 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"Harming"?
You claim you're not a bigot. Then you say "harming". Liar.

That makes me a bigot...how? I was referring to the eventual possibility of what may happen to the institution. I was not referring to gay marriage alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
There is a real answer to the asinine slippery slope argument you mention.
Quote:
Change only comes about when there is a real, compelling argument for the change that overcomes arguments against it. That's what we're seeing here. The arguments in support of gay marriage are stronger than the arguments against it.

That would be a reasonable point, were it not for the fad that you won't even acknowledge the arguments against it.

[QuoteIf you think there's no way the arguments in support of polygamous marriage will ever be stronger than the arguments against it, then you have nothing to fear from the slippery slope.

If, on the other hand, some time in the future, the arguments in favor of polygamous marriage are compelling enough, then who are you to stop that from happening based on what you believe today, not on what you learn in the future.

The arguments are exactly the same. The only possible difference is the practicality and logistics of marrying more than one person. Otherwise, there is no difference. Now, please explain on what grounds you'll deny me my right to marry more than one person.
Quote:
You're simply a fear mongerer.

FUD against same sex marriage is all you're spreading.

But there's really nothing to fear.

Unless you're lying and you're really a homophobe.

Once again, just can't help yourself, can you? I am expressing my concern about what gay marriage may mean for marriage itself. I've openly stated that I have no moral or religious objections to homosexuality. I have gay friends, acquaintances, and gay family members, one of which is in a committed gay relationship. I simply think the opposite of what you do...that the arguments for gay marriage are outweighed by the arguments against. I continue to think that civil unions are the way to go. Sorry you disagree. I will ask you to stop stating and/or implying I'm a bigot. If you cannot, we'll have to end our discussion.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 113

You say it will harm marriage but you don't quantify that harm at all.  HOW will it harm marriage?  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #39 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You say it will harm marriage but you don't quantify that harm at all.  HOW will it harm marriage?  
Exactly. He claims that same sex marriage is "harming" the institution. **** that. Newt Gingrich is harming the institution. Witch hunts for infidelity (on both sides of the political spectrum) are harming the institution. Repressed sexuality is harming the institution. By redefining marriage as a union of love between two people, we are SAVING the institution.

Now he's moved the goalposts about his "harming" comment and saying that the harm comes when we slide down the slippery slope. That's idiotic. Support gay marriage and oppose polygamy if that's what you want.

And it's not just logistics that make polygamy a difficult argument, there's also sociology and psychology involved.
post #40 of 113

Get the government out of marriage. Problem solved.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Britain Goes the Civil Union Route (Media Says it's Marriage).