quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Yeah, that follows pretty good. If you only view marriage as something religious, you're an idiot, and if you're an idiot, you're apt to be against gay marriage.

This has got to be the best argument I ever read in this forum. LOL.

Btw. I'd like to ask this months "what's that awful thing in your avatar"-question: What's that awful thing in your avatar? It sure is ugly.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Btw. I'd like to ask this months "what's that awful thing in your avatar"-question: What's that awful thing in your avatar? It sure is ugly.

Fedor Emelianenko, one of the world's premier mixed martial arts heavyweights.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Logical fallacy: argument from majority. A lot of people believed interracial marriage was wrong. A lot of people believed slavery was right. He's following your logic perfectly. Indeed it does. He's following your logic perfectly. Please respond.

Respond to what? That all people that believe that marriage was granted to us by God and is a religious matter are idiots?

Or the fact that at one time people on a whole did some pretty terrible things?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Oh come on... Didn't you go to Sunday school? This is just another example of where the government gets involved where it shouldn't. I forgot who said this (it was someone much greater than me): There are two reasons a government should exist: justice to evildoers and protection from enemies. Oh, and you don't need to get a marriage license to get married. Go to a church, fill out the marriage certificate, do the "I do" thing, and you're married. And it's recognizable by the government for tax purposes. The only thing a marriage license does is give the state permission to take your kids. They're state property when you get one.

Incorrect. A marriage licence that's granted by the State is the government's means of recognizing the unity between the two individuals without the needs for a religious marriage ceremony.

And the kids are State property only when the couple are deemed unfit for the responsibility of the children. Otherwise the State has no Constitutional holding over anyone's children.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Respond to what? That all people that believe that marriage was granted to us by God and is a religious matter are idiots? Or the fact that at one time people on a whole did some pretty terrible things?

Arbiter is flipping your argument around towards those religious views of marriage. From your premise that you state here:

quote:

I guess if you only view marriage as something religious, I can see how you'd be against gay marriage.

You are concluding that individuals cannot be against gay marriage UNLESS they view it as religious.

This is erroneous. I can advocate gay marriage without holding the view of marriage being religious, or more specifically, the present-day Christian view.

There are a range of interpretations of marriage that do not hold toward the present-day Christian definition of 1 man and 1 woman. I can believe these interpretations as "true" just as much as you believe your interpretation as "true", and still believe gay marriage is correct.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Arbiter is flipping your argument around towards those religious views of marriage.

Just to clear up some confusion, let me point out that that argument was osuracnaes', not Seventil's.

Further

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You are concluding that individuals cannot be against gay marriage UNLESS they view it as religious.

I would agree with this interpretation of osuracnaes' comment, but how does that relate to the rest of your post? It seems to me that you agree?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This is erroneous. I can advocate gay marriage without holding the view of marriage being religious, or more specifically, the present-day Christian view.

I'm not saying individuals who don't view marriage as religious can't be against gay marriage. I'm saying that I can understand someone being against gay marriage based on religious beliefs. I don't understand how you could reasonably be against a civil marriage.

I'm only basing this on what I've seen. Which is that most opposition to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs/background.

___________________
My myspace

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Just to clear up some confusion, let me point out that that argument was osuracnaes', not Seventil's.

Ahh, thanks for the correction.

quote:

Further I would agree with this interpretation of osuracnaes' comment, but how does that relate to the rest of your post? It seems to me that you agree?

I believe I misspoke, my apologies. Damn hangover's in full effect right now.

osuracnaes followed your post with this:

quote:

I'm only basing this on what I've seen. Which is that most opposition to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs/background.

While that may certainly be true for some individuals, what I was attempting to explain is that is not necessarily true for all advocates of gay marriage. Essentially I am saying that you do not have to necessarily view marriage as a religious ceremony (specifically a Christian ceremony, though there are other religions against homosexuality) in order to be a proponent of it.

Is that any better? If not, I'm sorry, but my head's fucking killing me, and I'm likely gonna head outa here soon.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 ...what I was attempting to explain is that is not necessarily true for all advocates of gay marriage. Essentially I am saying that you do not have to necessarily view marriage as a religious ceremony (specifically a Christian ceremony, though there are other religions against homosexuality) in order to be a proponent of it. Is that any better?

If by your last "it", you mean "marriage", then I got it now. Thanks for clearing it up.
I would also like to draw attention to Yoepus 2nd post, as he demonstrated a line of reasoning - going against gay-marriages - but which did not rely on religion. I do not agree with him, but it pretty much destroys the "against gay-marriage implies religious nut"-argument.

The legal underpinnings for same sex civil unions (civil marriage) are there based on the Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas US Supreme Court decisions.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/pro...law/loving.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

I do not in any way support the government forcing religious institutions to perform or recognize same sex marriages.

Civil marriage is a different story however.

The only basic difference I can see between a "civil union" and "civil marriage" is what you call it. When you use the word “marriage” people tend to bristle.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I love how the issue of gay marriage has made the Democrats supporters of states rights..

Indeed it is odd to see the roles reversed and the far right advocate for the federal government to intervene while liberals become state's rights advocates.

Both parties are largely "big government" though, so it shouldn't come as a huge surprise.

Ashcroft, an avowed federalist, has used his power to attempt to reverse Oregon’s assisted suicide law and also California’s tougher than EPA mandated clean air standards.

He failed on both counts.

Also note that 3 of the 4 Massachusetts SC justices that legalized same sex marriage in that state are Republicans.

Last edited by DaveSZ on Jul-23-2004 at 22:31

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish My thoughts exactly actually. I also feel it's a blatant chickenshit-stance on the subject, not supporting gay marriage out right but rather twist the issue it a bit and argue such decicions should be made at state level. Feels like they are just avoiding making a direct official stance on the subject because they are afraid to loose votes. damn those democrats and their chronic lack of spine

Haha indeed.

I've only found one person running for office of any political party who makes any sense on the subject:

http://www.ginnyschrader.com/Issues/gaymarriage.htm

quote:

Gay Marriage The term gay "marriage" is a semantic smokescreen for unwarranted discrimination. Committed couples should be able to form a union with binding rights and responsibilities including inheritance, healthcare coverage, property ownership and medical decisions for each other. Whatever the name, the ability to form this union must not be withheld. When a man and a woman go to the county courthouse to take out a "marriage" license they’re requesting that the State recognize their up coming civil union. Choosing to marry before a justice of the peace or at the courthouse, this couple is, in fact , entering into a "civil" union recognized by the State. If this same couple goes to a religious congregation to "marry", they are then not only engaging in a civil union recognized by the State but having a religious "marriage" recognized by their church, synagogue or mosque. These are two totally separate forms of recognition. For inheritance, healthcare coverage, property ownership or for medical decisions, the couple is protected by State law governing civil unions. As to their religious beliefs, couples follow the teaching of their religious community. In fact, the couple’s rights and responsibilities as pertains to their religion may not be the same as the civil contract. Conversely, in case of a civil divorce, the religious organization may or may not recognize the dissolution of the union. Today, gay and lesbian couples are asking for the same consideration, as heterosexual couples; recognition by the State of a legal union. Whether their particular religious community will conduct a "marriage" ceremony is a decision made by the religious organization and does not involve government. As to the civil contract, committed couples deserve to have the rights and responsibilities to form a civil union regardless of sexual orientation.

this whole 'gay marriage' issue is utter non-sense. gays CAN get married! just not to each other. if they want to be together, it's called union. there should be NO issue, but for some reason you socialists insist they need their marriage. the majority of america sees it this way, yet the socialists dont. if it were up to me i'd ban marriage for people who support gay marriage to shut you idiots up.