Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

[Turtle]

The reason I hear most often cited for why someone opposes legalizing gay marriage is that "marriage between a man and a woman is a union blessed by God" and that allowing homosexual to marriage is "an affront to God." So does this mean that you also oppose marriage between non-Christian heterosexuals,?

<P ID="signature"></P>

[MooglyGuy]

> So does this
> mean that you also oppose marriage between non-Christian
> heterosexuals,?

Of course they don't. This is because they are hypocrites.

<P ID="signature">http://www.zophar.net/Files/mooglish.png
"Kupo, motherfucker!! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"</P>

[Danoz]

It isn't a religious reasoning, but an attempt to protect us from both radical Judges who find themselves above the law, and the abolishing of traditional marriage (which is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman). Frankly, we just want those desiring homosexual marriage to go about getting it the right way-- and hopefully, to find a common ground involving a fair civil partnership of appropriate recognition and benefits.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Mr. Saturn]

> Frankly, we
> just want those desiring homosexual marriage to go about
> getting it the right way-- and hopefully, to find a common
> ground involving a fair civil partnership of appropriate
> recognition and benefits.

You know what would be really fair? For the government to reject future marriages, remove the benefits for it, and enforce only civil unions, with benefits. That way conservatives have their marriage, and homosexuals get to be mar-Oops. I mean civil-unioned.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[Ugly Joe]

> You know what would be really fair? For the government to
> reject future marriages, remove the benefits for it, and
> enforce only civil unions, with benefits. That way
> conservatives have their marriage, and homosexuals get to be
> mar-Oops. I mean civil-unioned.

What is so wrong with having two different terms for it? There is clearly a difference between the two, so why not make it explicit? I mean, your post is most likely just a troll at Danoz, but really it could work if a couple could be both married and "civily-unioned".

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Mr. Saturn]

> What is so wrong with having two different terms for it?
> There is clearly a difference between the two, so why not
> make it explicit? I mean, your post is most likely just a
> troll at Danoz, but really it could work if a couple could
> be both married and "civily-unioned".

That's what my ideal position is. The problem is it won't happen. So I have to take more cynical positions.
<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[Turtle]

> What is so wrong with having two different terms for it?
> There is clearly a difference between the two, so why not
> make it explicit?

It works all the time in Europe. However, Europe has a few thousand more years experience than North America in being civilized, so you can't blame the US for lagging behind on occasion.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Turtle]

> traditional marriage (which is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman).

Could you point out to me where this is defined? Is there a particular verse in the Bible that defines marriage or is the definition coming from another source? (Please don't take this as a challenge to the authenticity of your claim, I'm simply curious as to where precisely such is defined, as I don't recall having seen this before.)

<P ID="signature"></P>

[WhyteKnight]

> (which is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman).

Um. In the approximately 2 minutes I spent researching this, I found that the definitions of the words marriage, wedlock, and matrimony are more commonly explained as a union "between two people" or "any close union" as opposed to "between a man and a woman." example:
"Syn: Matrimony; wedlock; wedding; nuptials.
Usage: {Marriage}, {Matrimony}, {Wedlock}. Marriage is
properly the act which unites the two parties, and
matrimony the state into which they enter. Marriage
is, however, often used for the state as well as the
act. Wedlock is the old Anglo-Saxon term for
matrimony."
Webster's revised only mentions "man and woman" one time in their definition. The Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive authority on the English language, never did specify marriage as being between a man and a woman.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

[Danoz]

Where do you get this mesh? How do you think those marriages were overturned at all? The first definition of marriage, the word, has been as follows; "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." This isn't even open for debate. The institution is thousands of years old and it has historically, always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's clear you ignored the first line.

Then where is the argument? Definitions change. In this case, added to-- let's continue down the list.
"A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage."
Easy enough, right? No. We're talking about intent now, and it's obvious that at the writing of the word was for the definition accepted at the date of writing.

If marriage is to be allowed between same sex couples, it should be amended to the constitution and clarified. This is where I stand.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[MooglyGuy]

> What is so wrong with having two different terms for it?
> There is clearly a difference between the two, so why not
> make it explicit? I mean, your post is most likely just a
> troll at Danoz, but really it could work if a couple could
> be both married and "civily-unioned".

As for me, this is one time I agree with Danoz. There's no reason why churches should be forced to marry same-sex couples if they don't wish to do so. I'm of the stance that the legal definition of marriage should apply to same-sex marriages as well - you still have to get a marriage license, still have to go through the same legal hoo-hah to get married as a heterosexual couple, and still get the same benefits. If you want to call it a civil union, fine. Call it an extruded pineapple for all I care. I don't speak for the gay community as a whole (which is unfortunate), but the problem is that the gay community aren't separating out the religious and legal sides of it. Should gays be legally married/unioned/pinappled/whatevered? Sure. Should churches be forced to have a religious marriage ceremony for said gay couple to be able to get legally married? Fuck no.

<P ID="signature">http://www.zophar.net/Files/mooglish.png
"Kupo, motherfucker!! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"</P>

[mrfreeze]

Should gays be legally
> married/unioned/pinappled/whatevered? Sure. Should
> churches be forced to have a religious marriage ceremony for
> said gay couple to be able to get legally married? Fuck no.
>


<img src=smilies/werd.gif> If we could just get everyone to agree on tihs we would save everyone a lot of headaches. Although I don't see that happening anytime soon. I personally would love to vote yes on the pineapple extrusion bill.

<P ID="signature"><image src=http://imageshack.us/files/donsig2.gif></P>

[Turtle]

> Where do you get this mesh? How do you think those marriages
> were overturned at all?

They were overturned because the California Supreme Court declared that as Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom had no right to change the laws. It has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of marriage. Had Newsom declared that it was now legal to drive a car in San Francisco without wearing a seatbelt, it would have been overturned on the exact same grounds.

> The institution is thousands of years old and it has
> historically, always been defined as a union between a man
> and a woman.

So you're basing your opinion of the legality of gay marriage based on the dictionary definition of the word?

> If marriage is to be allowed between same sex couples, it
> should be amended to the constitution and clarified. This is
> where I stand.

How about if we institute a Constitutional Dictionary that defines every word in the Constitution? Then instead of having to reword it, we could simply redefine the words as necessary. It would make it much easier for children to memorize the text of the document in school.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Disch]

> What is so wrong with having two different terms for it?

There's a lot of fine print that specifically applies to the word "marraige" or "spouse" or "husband" or "wife" etc. Not just federal benefits, but insurace coverage, employment benefits, etc. Without the specific word 'marraige'... none of that would have to apply. So a in a heterosexual marraige, one person will be covered under the benefits of their spouse's insurance and whatnot, but in a homosexual 'civil union', there'd be no joint coverage at all.

There's no way in hell all that text is going to get changed to include both marriages and civil unions. You've got better odds of getting the states to convert to the metric system.

Without all that... the term 'civil union' means nothing more than boyfriend/girlfriend.

I suppose there could always be a law passed that says all rights/benefits that applies to legal marraiges must also apply to legal civil unions. That would theoretically solve everything... but I get the feeling there'd still be guff from both sides.

Personally I don't see what the big deal is with the word marriage. Allowing homosexuals to get married isn't any more of a definition twist than allowing married couples to be divorced (it IS supposed to be a life long commitment, after all). And it's the LEGAL definiton of marriage they're looking to change/clarify. Religions can still only recognize heterosexual marriages if they want... that's their call... but that shouldn't have any impact on what the government decides to do.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Ugly Joe]

> Should
> churches be forced to have a religious marriage ceremony for
> said gay couple to be able to get legally married? Fuck no.

Oh, I completely agree with you there. I was unaware I had said the contrary. I meant that you would have to get a civil union through the government if you want to get the government benefits. This would leave marriage (Christian marriage, that is) completely to the church and the government wouldn't care if you did it or not (just like they don't care if you're baptised or have taken communion)..

<P ID="signature"></P>

[WhyteKnight]

> The first definition of marriage, the word, has been as follows; "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." This isn't even open for debate.

Edit: On second thought, using nothing more than a sarcastic retort here is pointless and in poor taste. However, I firmly hold that it is open, in that not only do different institutions define it differently, and also in that one definition, no matter its placement in the list, does not necessarily give it precedence over others

> The institution is thousands of years old

So was slavery. This doesn't justify it.

> historically, always been defined as a union between a man
> and a woman. It's clear you ignored the first line.

Um, then why did I say that there was one mention of it?

> Then where is the argument? Definitions change. In this
> case, added to-- let's continue down the list.
> "A union between two persons having the customary but
> usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex
> marriage."

Added to, yes. The point remains though that OED never defined marriage as between man and woman.

> If marriage is to be allowed between same sex couples, it
> should be amended to the constitution and clarified. This is
> where I stand.
>

It probably should but it doesn't necessarily mean it should be prevented because the constitution doesn't mention it

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

[SpaceTiger]

I dunno, it seems to me that the whole argument is silly. Even the word "definition" is fuzzy here because different people take it to mean different things. You could take the dictionary to be the last word, but then different dictionaries say different things and any linguist would laugh at the idea of closing an argument with a dictionary definition. You could take the Bible to be the last word, but then not everyone believes that the Bible should be taken literally (or at all).

It sounds to me that Danoz is just trying to reword the argument to give his point of view more weight. He thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman, probably for religious reasons. Fine. We know that. He won't say that, though. Instead, he tries to universalize it by saying that it sits in some sort of absolute "definition". But that's exactly what we disagree with, so it's redundant. The argument was doomed from the start.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Turtle]

The issue here is the sanctity of marriage. Why that's the issue or what it even is, I'm not sure, but I wanted to use the word sanctity because nobody else has used it and I'm afraid we may be in violation of some statute that requires it.

I would, however, like to point out that anyone who thinks gay marriage should be illegal because it "spoils the sanctity of marriage" should also be willing to outlaw divorce and extra-marital sex since they also "spoil the sanctity of marriage."

In fact, since my state (Missouri) recently outlawed homosexual marriage via a constitutional amendment, I'm going to start the process of getting an amendment on the ballots to ban divorce.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Gavin_86]

> It isn't a religious reasoning, but an attempt to protect us
> from both radical Judges who find themselves above the law,
> and the abolishing of traditional marriage (which is, by
> definition, the union of a man and a woman).

yes of course, blindly clinging to tradition is the best way to solve the matter. i mean, those crazies who think that, "wait.. maybe there can be a better way, and maybe our society has evolved and changed in the last 200 years since precident was set", are obviously radicals and too scary to be taken seriously.

and we should stick to those judges who, thinking themselves above the law, stick religious doctrine on state grounds against the set law that you so desparatly cling to.

> Frankly, we
> just want those desiring homosexual marriage to go about
> getting it the right way-- and hopefully, to find a common
> ground involving a fair civil partnership of appropriate
> recognition and benefits.

please tell me, which correct way is that? they should patiently wait while thier rights are completely destroyed before petitioning for marriage by some old pricks who think that their semi-fundamentalist views should be forced on the world..?

and i have a sneaking suspision that your 'fair and appropriate regonition of benefits' would leave them with nothing but appropriate recognition or any benefits at all <img src=smilies/headshake.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center>I'm just a Paranoid Android watching through my superb crystal viewing glass

.::http://gavin.panicus.orgGavin.Panicus.org</a> ::.</center></P>

[Lenophis]

> I would, however, like to point out that anyone who thinks
> gay marriage should be illegal because it "spoils the
> sanctity of marriage" should also be willing to outlaw
> divorce and extra-marital sex since they also "spoil the
> sanctity of marriage."

Here's MY question, let's just say that same sex marriage IS allowed...(This is called a hypothetical situation, Danoz, don't blow a vein...yet. You've made the one mistake I've been waiting for. Now, I'm just waiting for you to corner yourself.) How does that stop the opposite sex from marrying each other? You've mentioned on many occasions that you want to preserve "the sanctity of marriage," which I've also shot down many times. How? Lemme remind you, marriage is not a materialistic thing, therefore, no possible value. Also, there is no "sentiment" to marriage, so no "sentimental value" to it either.

Also, I'd like to touch on Danoz's constant nagging about how marriage is defined. He says it's already law that is it clearly defined as "between a man and a woman." I'll re-ask for the first that asked, WHERE is that stated? US Constitution? Nope... Supreme Court ever say it? Nope... (Notice how I stay away from the other side, if any response to this line, use your head, hard as you can.)
<img src=smilies/liefde.gif> <-- Would you oppose these two from marrying one another? What if I told you they were designed as a gay smiley couple?

And then, the next point Danoz LOVES to bring up. Apparently, the mind of a child will be warped if raised by two same sex people... I can assure you, a child's mind will be warped by many other things well before this ever sets in. Want examples?
1. Music videos <-- Christina, Brittany, nuff said.
2. Media <-- pretty much plays in with number 1. This includes all music itself, movies, and regular "network" TV.
3. Peer pressure <-- nuff said.
4. Full House, THREE same sex people raising three girls. Did they warp at ALL? (Father of three, and his two brothers. Joey is clearly the oddball, so try and crack him why don't ya.) Ok, bad example. <img src=smilies/sleep.gif>

Of all of those I gave, you think that gay marriage is the big threat? You need to get your priorities straight... For now I'm just gonna sit here and wait it out, until you bring in the one magic word. Be prepared for the biggest flame of your life. Nothing that Lillymon or anyone else has said will topple what I have in store for you...

As a final thought, here's my proposal... (This pretty much is what most here are already saying. <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>)
1. Since marriage itself is regulated by the government, allow the same sex marriage. But, since churches are all high and mighty, they won't. Well, what's wrong with city hall anyway?
2. The church wants to keep whining and bitching about same sex being "married?" Fine, whatever, call it "civial union." (That's pretty much what marriage is anyway.)
3. Equal benefits for both sides. Would be nice, but this government can't even get the health care system working. So, no dice... <img src=smilies/banghead.gif>
4. Once and for all, stop harrasing the ones that want this to go through like they are renegades. (Wasn't McCarthy a renegade....? (Think back to the 1950's)) Is it so much to ask for people wanting equal treatment? That IS what this country stands for, isn't it? One word, yes...or no...

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[IceWolf20]

> It isn't a religious reasoning, but an attempt to protect us from both radical Judges who find themselves above the law, and the
> abolishing of traditional marriage. Frankly, we just want those desiring homosexual marriage to go about getting it the right way--
> and hopefully, to find a common ground involving a fair civil partnership of appropriate
> recognition and benefits.

Well, I'm glad to see that you do support at the very least a union with equal rights/benefits as marriage. But as far as "marriage" itself is concerned....I really belive that the US government, or any government, state or otherwise, should not have the right to ban marriage....hetero or homosexual (barring age/incest restrictions). Why should the government be able to prevent any adult couple of sound mind from being included into the socioeconomic structure like everyone else? It should be up to the specific denominations of religion to decide what "marriage" is. If the religious leaders of any denomination determine that marriage is to only take place between a man and a woman....so be it, that's they're perogitive and protected under religious freedom. Religion is not a business, and yes, they can discriminate people under the 1st Ammendment. But if a religious organization decides that its ok for a homosexual couple to get married, they what's the problem here? I understand that you find homosexuality morally reprehensible, but denying someone their rights over what they think is and is not moral (so long as it conforms to laws....like if you don't think murder is immoral, that doesn't mean you're being denied your rights) is pretty wrong....especially when the same right is bestowed upon everyone else in this country.

Basically what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be up to the government to restrict an institution that isn't even theirs. Religion "owns" marriage, let them decide what they can and can't do with it.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[thegodofhellfire]

> 2. The church wants to keep whining and bitching about same sex
> being "married?" Fine, whatever, call it "civial union." (That's pretty
> much what marriage is anyway.)

Actually, no, I'm not prepared to make this concession. Where marriages already take place outside the church, it's a logical fallacy to consider the institution exclusively religious. I've never demanded that any church itself carry out such a ceremony, or even necessarily recognise one. (Given that the Bible is such an anti-homosexual document, I can't really see why any homosexual couple would want the church to be involved in the first place.) But the church has absolutely no business interfering with ceremonies that take place entirely outwith its auspices, whether or not they involve homosexuals.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Kuikorosu]

> Webster's revised only mentions "man and woman" one time in
> their definition. The Oxford English Dictionary, the
> definitive authority on the English language, never did
> specify marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Actually, he referenced the term traditional marriage. The word "marriage" can be a bond between anything, as quoted from another dictionary:

4. marriage -- a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

No matter how you dance around the technical definition of marriage, it doesn't hold any water. Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman.

<P ID="signature"><hr>
Name: Kuik
Level: 40BLM/21RDM/19RNG/15THF/10NIN/8WHM
Nation: Windurst
Server: Fenrir
Linkshell: CursorSolaris</P>

[Lillymon]

> (Given that the Bible is such an anti-homosexual document, I
> can't really see why any homosexual couple would want the
> church to be involved in the first place.)

Actually, that's debated. The vast majority of Conservative Christians go with the King James version (sometimes going as far as saying God himself guided this translation*) and interpret it as condemning homosexuality.

However, I've found many who study the Greek and Hebrew versions to come to the conclusion that the anti-homosexual bias is partly due to biased translators and faulty interpretation.

* The most shining example of this I've seen is Jack Chick's Statement of Faith (http://www.chick.com/information/general/statementoffaith.asp) which says: "We hold that the Bible, the Holy Word of a Holy God, was not only free from error in the originals (which have been lost for centuries) but also we believe God in His Singular providential care has KEPT HIS WORD all through the ages, right down to the present day as found in the King James Version. We consider this version our final and absolute authority, above and beyond all other authorities on earth." (Emphasis added by me.)

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Kuikorosu]

> and the abolishing of traditional marriage (which is, by
> definition, the union of a man and a woman). Frankly, we
> just want those desiring homosexual marriage to go about
> getting it the right way-- and hopefully, to find a common
> ground involving a fair civil partnership of appropriate
> recognition and benefits.

Sorry, to the dismay of 90% of the people on this board, I'm going to have to agree with Danoz. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and maybe I'm a shortsighted and closed minded, but I just don't feel comfortable with the concept of homosexuals getting married. I'm all for the civil-union and fair civil partnership with appropriate recognition and benefits deal, but marriage should be kept between a man and a woman.

I don't hate gay people! Honestly! (Braces to dodge rotten vegetables)

<P ID="signature"><hr>
Name: Kuik
Level: 40BLM/21RDM/19RNG/15THF/10NIN/8WHM
Nation: Windurst
Server: Fenrir
Linkshell: CursorSolaris</P>

[Lillymon]

> I'm all for the civil-union and fair civil partnership with appropriate
> recognition and benefits deal, but marriage should be kept
> between a man and a woman.

OK, but aside from the name ("A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.") what would actually be the difference between this and an actual marriage? If the answer is nothing, then I guess we have nothing to debate about.

> I don't hate gay people! Honestly! (Braces to dodge rotten
> vegetables)

I hope you don't mean that in a 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' way...

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Ugly Joe]

> However, I've found many who study the Greek and Hebrew
> versions to come to the conclusion that the anti-homosexual
> bias is partly due to biased translators and faulty
> interpretation.

Just out of curiosity, where did you find this information?

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Lillymon]

> Just out of curiosity, where did you find this information?

A regular poster on the MisterPoll forums and others that I can't actually remember right now.

What? I'm sure I'm right about this, I just can't be bothered to try and bolster this argument when I'm also sure it won't make the slightest bit of difference.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Ugly Joe]

> What? I'm sure I'm right about this, I just can't be
> bothered to try and bolster this argument when I'm also sure
> it won't make the slightest bit of difference.

Touchy touchy. I was just genuinely curious as to where you got the information, not claiming you made it up or anything.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Lillymon]

> Touchy touchy. I was just genuinely curious as to where you
> got the information, not claiming you made it up or
> anything.

I wasn't talking to you. I was anticipating responses from various other people.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[MooglyGuy]

> OK, but aside from the name ("A rose by any other name would
> still smell as sweet.") what would actually be the
> difference between this and an actual marriage?

I think his point is what I've been trying to get across all along - sure, yeah, have the same legal benefits of a civil union, but don't force churches to marry gay couples.

<P ID="signature">http://www.zophar.net/personal/mooglyguy/new_jersey.gif</P>

[thegodofhellfire]

> I think his point is what I've been trying to get across all
> along - sure, yeah, have the same legal benefits of a civil
> union, but don't force churches to marry gay couples.

No, I don't think that's something many people are after - as I said, I'm certainly not. But churches don't have a monopoly on marriage ceremonies. Heterosexuals can easily get married elsewhere. Likewise should homosexuals.

Edit: Because my grammer have problem.
<P ID="signature"></p><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by thegodofhellfire on 08/13/04 06:05 PM.</FONT></P>

[thegodofhellfire]

> However, I've found many who study the Greek and Hebrew
> versions to come to the conclusion that the anti-homosexual
> bias is partly due to biased translators and faulty
> interpretation.

Interesting. I'd like to read more about that. To the Googlator!

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I dunno, it seems to me that the whole argument is silly. Even the word "definition" is fuzzy here because different people take it to mean different things. You could take the dictionary to be the last word, but then different dictionaries say different things and any linguist would laugh at the idea of closing an argument with a dictionary definition. You could take the Bible to be the last word, but then not everyone believes that the Bible should be taken literally (or at all).

<hr></blockquote>
I haven't used the Bible in my argument, I'm concerned over the institution of marriage which has, for thousands of years, been between a man and a woman! How are you still trying to argue such an indisputable fact? It's also an echo of what is biologically natural! (Want to argue this point? Fine. Show me a pregnant man.) I don't care what people do in the bedroom, I really don't-- but it has nothing to do with marriage. If people what a partnership with some legality, I'm all for that-- but there's no reason to call it something it obviously isn't.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It sounds to me that Danoz is just trying to reword the argument to give his point of view more weight. He thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman, probably for religious reasons. Fine. We know that. He won't say that, though. Instead, he tries to universalize it by saying that it sits in some sort of absolute "definition". But that's exactly what we disagree with, so it's redundant. The argument was doomed from the start.

<hr></blockquote>
You disagree with it, but provide nothing to support your disagreement in the face of historical fact. You can argue that marriage has changed, that is all-- this is the disagreement. And it doesn't have to be religious. Stop using this ad hominem in dismissing my perfectly reasonable argument as "religious", therefore "worthless".

I do, however, agree that we should agree to disagree on this argument. This is as circular an argument as abortion.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> You disagree with it, but provide nothing to support your
> disagreement in the face of historical fact.

A definition that is "historically" consistent is not an absolute. I agree that it has traditionally been considered to be between a man and woman. What I disagree with is your assertion that this even matters or has any absolute relevance.


> You can argue
> that marriage has changed, that is all-- this is the
> disagreement.

Agreed.


> And it doesn't have to be religious. Stop
> using this ad hominem in dismissing my perfectly reasonable
> argument as "religious"

Why on earth would that be an ad hominem? Religion is not an inherently negative thing and it certainly isn't attacking you personally (the meaning of an ad hominem attack). If your opinion has no basis in religion, then I apologize for misinterpreting you.


> therefore "worthless".

Wtf, dude? I respect your opinion. All I'm saying is that the argument is pointless. We clearly disagree and your rephrasing of it isn't going to change anybody's mind.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Gokuh]

Marriage:
Just call them civil unions and be done with the damn things. Let the churches do what they damn well feel like.

Rights:
I am leaning towards no spousal rights. Why, when i think of spousal rights a think of tax breaks. Insurance is up to the companies. The reason why i point to no is because to me the purpose of these tax breaks is to help a family procreate and raise children. A same sex couple cannot do that without major intervention

Adoption
I dont know. I serioulsy cannot say. Will gay parents cause a kid to be fucked up? Do we even need an answer to that question with all the divorce and single parents around? Someone much smarter than I needs to answer that question

<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>

[king killa]

&lt;QUOTE>
As for me, this is one time I agree with Danoz. There's no
reason why churches should be forced to marry same-sex
couples if they don't wish to do so. I'm of the stance that
the legal definition of marriage should apply to same-sex
marriages as well - you still have to get a marriage
license, still have to go through the same legal hoo-hah to
get married as a heterosexual couple, and still get the same
benefits. If you want to call it a civil union, fine. Call
it an extruded pineapple for all I care. I don't speak for
the gay community as a whole (which is unfortunate), but the
problem is that the gay community aren't separating out the
religious and legal sides of it. Should gays be legally
married/unioned/pinappled/whatevered? Sure. Should
churches be forced to have a religious marriage ceremony for
said gay couple to be able to get legally married? Fuck no.
&lt;/QUOTE>
<img src=smilies/werd.gif>
I agree 100% Well said.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Lillymon]

> Adoption
> I dont know. I serioulsy cannot say. Will gay parents
> cause a kid to be fucked up?

Studies have been done and they said no. Children bought up by gay parents tend to be more liberal than others, but there has been no evidence that more become homosexuals or have some sort of 'disadvantage'. Other than those idiots who go "Your parents are queers! Loser!"...

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Danoz]

Haha, I can't imagine a study from any university in this country would seek an answer other than the one you just gave. One must formulate an opinion on this subject, because "studies" are more than guarunteed to be bias in BOTH directions.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

A definition that is "historically" consistent is not an absolute. I agree that it has traditionally been considered to be between a man and woman. What I disagree with is your assertion that this even matters or has any absolute relevance.

<hr></blockquote>

It matters when a grounding majority (including many homosexuals themselves) disagree with the concept. My biggest issue is with those wanting the change not going through the legislature to do it the right way. Judges and mayors and not in positions to do this kind of rewriting of traditional definitions, imposing dramatic changes to already existing institutions. Why don't they amend the constitution? Why don't they try to gain support for their cause?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Why on earth would that be an ad hominem? Religion is not an inherently negative thing and it certainly isn't attacking you personally (the meaning of an ad hominem attack). If your opinion has no basis in religion, then I apologize for misinterpreting you. Wtf, dude? I respect your opinion. All I'm saying is that the argument is pointless. We clearly disagree and your rephrasing of it isn't going to change anybody's mind.

<hr></blockquote>
If you were to dismiss the argument as invalid because it were religious it would be ad hominem, but if I misunderstood you then I of course take it back.
It's no secret that I find homosexuality emotionally unhealthy and wrong, and that I do have religious reasons for this belief... but I find other sexual acts, many between men and women, just as wrong-- and I find myself equally as guilty in departing away from what was intended. I don't want to judge others. This is a free country, and these people are free to do as they want in the bedroom. I can see where you want to connect my belief structure with my views on homosexual marriage (if I understand you correctly, you think I'm spinning the argument to hide religious reasoning, in an attempt to give it validity in a place like this). This just isn't correct. The problem I have, is that marriage is an institution set up to give benefits, both to the couple, and to those beginning a family. I have no problem giving a legal partnership to a gay couple, I have no problem giving them the applicable benefits to their situation... but it's not marriage, and we shouldn't call it what it simply isn't. I really think this is a fair common ground, one that many more moderate Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger have supported. If anything is going to be accomplished there has to be a give and a take.


<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Danoz]

I don't think forcing churches to marry people was every really the issue, though. You guys are forgetting that I'm really in the middle of this argument.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[MooglyGuy]

> Haha, I can't imagine a study from any university in this
> country would seek an answer other than the one you just
> gave.

Why, because all universities are liberal? Ayup, that thar Danoz, he don't need none o' that fancy book learnin'...

<P ID="signature">http://www.zophar.net/personal/mooglyguy/new_jersey.gif</P>

[Lillymon]

> It matters when a grounding majority (including many
> homosexuals themselves) disagree with the concept.

You've said this before (implying many or even a majority of homosexuals are against homosexual marriages/civil unions/whatever). Do you have any grounds for saying this? Have you talked to any homosexuals on the issue? Are you quoting from a survey that I'm unaware of? Details man! Details!

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Danoz]

> Why, because all universities are liberal? Ayup, that thar
> Danoz, he don't need none o' that fancy book learnin'...

First off, I'm a double major of communications and political science at KSU. To answer your question, yes, there maintains an extreme liberal bias on most college campuses. I'm not freaking out here at all, just noting what I find blatently obvious.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Danoz]

I obviously can't quote for a majority, but some I've talked to actually find the media-show marriages in roller-coaster lines embarrassing and not fully representing what everybody wants. I know for a fact that my old musical director finds the concept unnecessary. He never had any problems visiting his life-partner in a hospital or sharing estate, nobody treats them like second-class citizens, nobody makes them unwelcome.... that it's simply not a need, that there are other battles far more worth perusing outside a certificate for political show (I wish I could quote him directly, I really liked what he had to say and I changed my opinion because of it.)

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Mr. Saturn]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Want to argue this point? Fine. Show me a pregnant man.

<hr></blockquote>
<a href=http://www.malepregnancy.com/>Okay.</a>

Note: I know it's a hoax, but he asked to see one. <img src=http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/smilies/thumb.gif>
<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></p><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Mr. Saturn on 08/14/04 01:41 AM.</FONT></P>

[Narvick]

Marriage in Christianity is a union under God. People who aren't Christian who get married just get legally married it's not holy matrimony even though it might be said that way. That's just how it is. Christians are not opposed to non-Christian heterosexuals getting married. And since 'marriage' has grown to a general sense nowadays as a union between two people under the law, there just isn't anything holy about it anymore, it's all bastardized.

<P ID="signature">:D!</P>

[WhyteKnight]

> other sexual acts, many between men and women, just as wrong--

<img src=http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/ruinkai/spanka.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

[Gokuh]

So does this
> mean that you also oppose marriage between non-Christian
> heterosexuals,?

I had an exgirlfriend who believed that marraige between to people of different Christian denominations was an affront to god. They would be "unequally yoked"!

<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>