Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[froedrick]

Just continue reading the main article on marriage and you will have a definition that includes a religious aspect. Since you all seem to think society alone defines marriage i can rest my case because wikipedia is more than anything else a mirror of societys views in todays world. In a few years the marriage article might have changed - and with it the "truth" - but thats a different story.



You deliberately squeezed the word "solely" in there because you knew your argumentation would not make any sense without it. I never said marriage is defined only by religion. @Dank, id be happy if someone could start refuting my points as opposed to accusing me of things i never said.

Also the reasoning was indeed weird. You argue that marriage has no religious meaning because ppl get married in china too, right? Than you claim "religious reasons are not a valid objection" because we have separation of church and state, right? Since people get married in countries where state and religion are not separated (where religious reasons are a valid objection) your claim cant be true after you apply the same "logic". If you want take this as a proof that marriage has a religious meaning but i wont argue about this any longer.


You cant even tell me what you want without contradicting yourself.
We want equal marriage, but not as a religious concept.
We want equal marriage, but not where it contradicts social fairness.
We want equal marriage, but not where it contradicts the rules of law.
We want equal marriage, but only for the conform ideology.
We want equal marriage, but some meaning of marriage can remain unequal.
We want equal marriage, go find another word for whatever is not equal.

Wait, where exactly do our positions differ again? Oh, i know. You expect society to change towards your ideal while i only expect society to respect what is different.

You're wrong, gg.

[Troll King]

Just continue reading the main article on marriage and you will have a definition that includes a religious aspect. Since you all seem to think society alone defines marriage i can rest my case because wikipedia is more than anything else a mirror of societys views in todays world. In a few years the marriage article might have changed - and with it the "truth" - but thats a different story.

It does include a religious aspect, but it's down at the eighth section of the article. BELOW the sections about laws, government regulation and yes, even the part about gender restrictions and same-sex unions. The fact it's placed that far down should tell you something. Yes, marriage can have a religious aspect, that isn't what Epi or anyone else is arguing against you about. They're arguing the other side, that it isn't limited to just the religious view. You're basing everything on the tie between religion and marriage when what everyone else is saying is that it's not the main connection.

[Epinephrine]

You succeeded to refute the argument of marriage being a solely religious concept, but I don't think Fluffz was necessarily trying to say that.

In case you missed it:

Galleleo: Tons of people get married just because they love each other and want that in writing, so to speak, and never have kids.

You might want to know that the church wedding still requires your will to get children. It is the government that decided to fuck things up by trying to change a religious tradition into a legal status. This legal status is becoming more an more inappropriate the more different groups have access. The gay pair should protest against being filed under the same legal status as the asexual living partnership just alike.

=======

The situation on law is clear: In those countries that do not allow same sex marriage the law dictates: You need a man and a woman to marry (Since the law is based on religion there are many points that the same sex partnership can not fulfill but this one will do).

(3) No, i want you to accept marriage has a religious meaning.

And since the word is already there with all its meaning why would the gays go trough the hassle of founding their own church just to apply this anti gay word to their partnerships?
.
.
.
Why would the gay people want to call their relationship marriage, they should not give a shit about a word from a church that cant accept them. Sure, they could call it marriage, but for what reason should they? That word would be an insult of their identity. They should try to get church to accept them or do their own thing.

=========

Me: "So in fact... the word 'married' is NOT religious."

@Epinephrine, you need to realize that you cant just subtract the religious meaning of marriage like that. In previous posts i also stated differences unrelated to marriage, as laughable you might have thought they were. On a personal note: If state gave me civil union as an option next to marriage i would have choosen the civil union.

========

Me: "Therefore, the idea of being married is not solely a religious concept, even if religion does embrace it."

And since the word is already there with all its meaning why would the gays go trough the hassle of founding their own church just to apply this anti gay word to their partnerships?

========

Your argumentation is illogical and against all evidence. Just type marriage into google, the second link (after the russian bride website) links to http://www.christianitytoday.com/

If you'll note, fluffz has created a ton of different arguments throughout this thread. But he's basically abandoned all lines of argumentation as they have been shot down. The only thing he's still clinging on is that marriage is religious, and religious people don't like it, so don't allow gay marriage. Furthermore, his continuous equating of gays wanting marriage with the church, and continuous equating of the definition of marriage as religious based shows that at the core, for him marriage = Christian thing that gay people should stay out of.

Since we can ALL now agree that marriage isn't just a religious thing, I think we can once and for all shoot down fluffz's remaining argument which he hasn't be able to let go of yet.


In the end, all the other arguments are completely irrelevant to our discussion. The issue of allowing gays to marry or not, is a rights issue. If we as a society cannot allow gays to do something which we allow anyone else (criminals, other religions, people who are NOT religious, all races) to do, we are specifically discriminating against them. It's nice to say that gays can have something similar but call it something different, but that differentiation is exactly what the discrimination is all about. Using a different term for one group of people compared to another has been the basis of discrimination throughout the ages.

If the argument were reversed, say 'the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and stop calling ANYTHING a marriage' that would be different, but that has NEVER truly been the case in this thread.

The basis of western liberal democracies is that human rights are paramount, and the importance and freedom of the individual is highly values. As such, discrimination against a major segment of our population like this, especially when such discrimination causes no actual physical harm to anyone else if it were undone should have no place in our society. In light of that, old rules like banning gay marriage should be revised, similar to many other rights which have been won by various groups which were previously discriminated upon and now have rights themselves.

[Zerzera]

Strong plea Epinephrine, but you didn't refute the point that homo marriages are not the same. Socially and physically. Keeping nonconformists outside of our community, and without rights, is exactly what makes society beautiful and diverse! Individuals should not wish to seek acceptance, their daily struggle will make them better persons. Their torture will make their life more enjoyable.

[Squeezer]

Strong plea Epinephrine, but you didn't refute the point that homo marriages are not the same. Socially and physically. Keeping nonconformists outside of our community, and without rights, is exactly what makes society beautiful and diverse! Individuals should not wish to seek acceptance, their daily struggle will make them better persons. Their torture will make their life more enjoyable.

Because if we allow gay marriage all the social problems will magically go away and no new ones will be created (just like denying blacks civil rights!).

[Cops]

So what i'm indirectly taking out of context is that Zerzera believes slavery made people stronger. Hmm, interesting.

[froedrick]

Hours upon hours doing physical labor would make you stronger baby.

[Fluffz]

So in fact... the word 'married' is NOT religious.

It's nice to say that gays can have something similar but call it something different, but that differentiation is exactly what the discrimination is all about. Using a different term for one group of people compared to another has been the basis of discrimination throughout the ages.

Sighn, just replace "gays" with "religious people" and read it again. I also dont know how to communicate this to you but i did NOT claim marriage was solely a religious concept. You "shot down" only what you wanted to hear. I abandoned nothing, my argument still is: "Marriage has a religious meaning". Since i already proved this claim i can conclude from your quote: It is unjust to remove the religious meaning of marriage. There is a fundamental mistake in your argument.

Than you continue and claim "The issue of allowing gays to marry or not, is a rights issue". Here i just have to emphasize who is switching subjects because he is getting his arguments shut down. Anyway, i buy your bait. So how so you equalize rules on blood relationship, (i decided to give only one example). Tell me why blood lines matter for the gay couple. Zerz said nothing of this belongs into a marriage law. Well pragmatically this would only mean you would have to create differences in every other law in the name of equalisation. Ideologically this means you want a formal law for a formal status. At best only containing administrative rules on how to obtain or cancel that status. Excuse my ignorance, but why does the state need to have a say in such a marriage again? Such a law would not fulfill ANY purpose, negating the meaning of law in the word marriage, voiding your argument about marriage being a rights issue.

Zerz, i read your comment as the sarcastic post it was. And i call you the biggest hypocrite ever because you argue against individuality in a thread about gay rights. If all the effort that was put into the gay movement would have been put in the development of Hetracil than this drug would have been a success and your solution of conformity would already be established. But seriously, i am not against rights for gay relationships, just make sure they are fair.

@Epinephrine, you need to realize that you cant just subtract the religious meaning of marriage like that. In previous posts i also stated differences unrelated to religion, as laughable you might have thought they were. On a personal note: If state gave me civil union as an option next to marriage i would have choosen the civil union.

i dont exactly have time to write an essay here, forgive me that mistake. Omg, what would Freud say...

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Sighn, just replace "gays" with "religious people" and read it again.

It's nice to say that religious people can have something similar but call it something different, but that differentiation is exactly what the discrimination is all about.

BUT NO ONE'S SAYING THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE CAN'T GET MARRIED. You're stating that homosexuals should not be able to get married--there is no counter "straight, religious people should not be able to get married" argument.

I abandoned nothing, my argument still is: "Marriage has a religious meaning".

And that's fine, and no one is doubting that. But what Epi (and almost everyone else) is trying to explain to you is that it also has a NON-religious meaning. It's not BASED solely in religion.

Than you continue and claim "The issue of allowing gays to marry or not, is a rights issue".

Which is exactly what it is.

So how so you equalize rules on blood relationship, (i decided to give only one example). Tell me why blood lines matter for the gay couple. Zerz said nothing of this belongs into a marriage law. Well pragmatically this would only mean you would have to create differences in every other law in the name of equalisation. Ideologically this means you want a formal law for a formal status. At best only containing administrative rules on how to obtain or cancel that status. Excuse my ignorance, but why does the state need to have a say in such a marriage again? Such a law would not fulfill ANY purpose, negating the meaning of law in the word marriage, voiding your argument about marriage being a rights issue.

Why would any of this matter? Just make it equal across the board. This isn't rocket science, and it's not like there's a loophole where a man could marry a donkey, or a woman could marry her car. Stop trying to make it into a bigger issue than just:

Married couples (heterosexual or homosexual) have such-and-such rights.

The total change in the written law would be less than two sentences, probably.

Let's say you're a church, and you don't want to marry gay couples in your church. Go right ahead! No one is going to force Bishop Gerald B. Poopypants to marry Bill and Ted (although I hear their reception was excellent). Religious leaders still would get to call the shots in their 'hood, but wouldn't abridge someone else's right to get married. Done and done. It really is that simple.

Zerz, i read your comment as the sarcastic post it was. And i call you the biggest hypocrite ever because you argue against individuality in a thread about gay rights.

$10 says there's some good stuff comin' up.

If all the effort that was put into the gay movement would have been put in the development of Hetracil than this drug would have been a success and your solution of conformity would already be established.

Sooo... you're treating it like a disease again?

But seriously, i am not against rights for gay relationships, just make sure they are fair.

Again, what is fair about you infringing on someone else's right to get married to the person they love?

You're being discriminatory. I know that's hard to own up to, but you are.

[Epinephrine]

Sighn, just replace "gays" with "religious people" and read it again. I also dont know how to communicate this to you but i did NOT claim marriage was solely a religious concept. You "shot down" only what you wanted to hear. I abandoned nothing, my argument still is: "Marriage has a religious meaning". Since i already proved this claim i can conclude from your quote: It is unjust to remove the religious meaning of marriage. There is a fundamental mistake in your argument.

Here's a question for you that you will either not understand or will blow your brain apart (I'm thinking it will be the former). If you truly don't believe that marriage is not just a religious concept, then why do you keep bringing up the religious aspect of marriage? What does it matter at all to this discussion?

For instance, NOT GAMBLING has significant religious meaning. Adultery has significant religious meaning. Not worshipping other gods has significant religious meaning. Yet we allow ALL OF THESE in our society. So if all marriage was, is something that 'has religious meaning' why the hell does it even matter at all to the discussion? It's a complete moot point, and completely pointless example that you keep on harping on because you are frankly out of ideas.

Than you continue and claim "The issue of allowing gays to marry or not, is a rights issue". Here i just have to emphasize who is switching subjects because he is getting his arguments shut down. Anyway, i buy your bait. So how so you equalize rules on blood relationship, (i decided to give only one example). Tell me why blood lines matter for the gay couple. Zerz said nothing of this belongs into a marriage law. Well pragmatically this would only mean you would have to create differences in every other law in the name of equalisation. Ideologically this means you want a formal law for a formal status. At best only containing administrative rules on how to obtain or cancel that status.

I actually don't understand what you're trying to say here. Blood relationship? Are you talking about incest? Blood lines for gays? What the hell are you talking about?

Excuse my ignorance, but why does the state need to have a say in such a marriage again? Such a law would not fulfill ANY purpose, negating the meaning of law in the word marriage, voiding your argument about marriage being a rights issue.

The law can define marriage however it wants. It honestly does not matter what the definition is as long as it's properly spelled out. These are just words, they have no special meaning outside of their definition in the law. Similarity the definition of marriage under the law can be expanded very easily to include gay relationships.

Unless you believe there is some other definition of marriage, which OVERRIDES that of the law (which can be and is rewritten all the time) your argument is absolutely moot. Of course the fact that you keep bringing up definitions, and keep pointing to the religious definition of the word 'marriage' shows that you believe that particular definition to be the most important. Well you've already conceded that you now understand that marriage happens outside of religion, and such religion has absolutely no monopoly on that word. Thus yet again, your argument is irrelevent.

[royCE]

u people care about gays this much?

[Liquid Blue]

not as much as I care about smash brawl

amirite

[Zerzera]

u people care about gays this much?

Strong argument. I partly agree with you. But from a religious stance this brings forth quite a paradox. Because God told us that homo sex is an abomination. He severely punished people who, not only committed these acts, but also those who supported them. On the other hand, Jesus told us that we should love the sinner, no matter the sin. If we want to secure our spot in heaven we will have to guess what God wants. So we can't give them equal rights, and we can't hate them. So, in the meantime, we just try to maneuver between those two stances and hope we figured this out before we die. The gay people will just have to suffer during this time.
Not that it is a big difference, because they will burn in hell for eternity after this life. So we just deny them the only happiness they will ever have, for the sake of our own souls. (Unless we are wrong, and we should have loved them from day one. Then, of course, we will gladly burn with them.)

[Zerzera]

Zerz, i read your comment as the sarcastic post it was. And i call you the biggest hypocrite ever because you argue against individuality in a thread about gay rights.

You read it as sarcasm, which is highly respectable. Some people failed to sense that. But then you still take it as the argument you want it to be, which is a bit silly.
How do I argue against individuality when I stand sarcastic against your refusal to support individuality with rights? I did understand your point; you can't cater every single person with the law.
But you can create freedom of the individual with laws that make people equal. People can be nonconforming if you create rights that are -and can be!- equal to all.
You say that it's not possible, I think that it depends on what scope you legislate peoples rights.
Thank God, I don't have to explain this theory to you, because I have a worldly example; my country.
If you want to make yet another attempt I will redirect you again and again -and again and again- to the gay rights in the Netherlands.
Yes, it's possible. No, it doesn't degrade your society. Thank you for your efforts.

PS. Of course, giving people certain freedoms will have negative side effects. Some people will abuse these rights. But if you are tolerant, those effects are worth it in the end.

EDIT: You seem to forget that most countries have trias politica, which allows the legislation branch to leave things open for the more practical judiciary branch. Which will become the common law.
What I get from your posts is that you are against this, please explain.

[Squeezer]

Strong argument. I partly agree with you. But from a religious stance this brings forth quite a paradox. Because God told us that homo sex is an abomination. He severely punished people who, not only committed these acts, but also those who supported them. On the other hand, Jesus told us that we should love the sinner, no matter the sin. If we want to secure our spot in heaven we will have to guess what God wants. So we can't give them equal rights, and we can't hate them. So, in the meantime, we just try to maneuver between those two stances and hope we figured this out before we die. The gay people will just have to suffer during this time.
Not that it is a big difference, because they will burn in hell for eternity after this life. So we just deny them the only happiness they will ever have, for the sake of our own souls. (Unless we are wrong, and we should have loved them from day one. Then, of course, we will gladly burn with them.)

yeah but god's not real.

or he's a bastard.