BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:32 PM

Same with you, buddy.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:02 PM

Thanks Bruce...Very interesting...Kinda puts things in perspective!

Hope all's well   Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM

Worth looking at, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:54 PM

For the first, and probably only, time, I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:50 PM

The thread stands.
People can read it and make up their own minds.
Thank you for your assistance ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM

akenaton

It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined.

I have tried to respond in a frivolous way in my last few posts because this thread is so stupid, but there comes a point...

You have produced absolutely no evidence, even anecdotal, that the "vast majority" think the way you claim they do. Many of the people arguing against you are happily married heterosexual Christians. Several others have produced anecdotal evidence that people in general are accepting of gay relationships. You are on your own. Stop trying to disguise your own bigotry as defending the rights of the silent majority. Consider the possibilty that you might be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM

Don't apologise Bee.
You are at a loss to describe my arguments because you simply don't understand them or me.

Try reading Little Hawk's post, even you might gain some enlightenment, but I doubt it.

If this fails, just get back in the cage with the rest. But be careful, before long they usually start to devour themselves....

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:59 PM

Well put, Ebbie. I don't find imagining most people's sexual habits 'appealing', regardless of their genders. So I don't. This leaves me free to enjoy the company of countless nice people who are physically unappealing to me.

Ake, I'm sorry you found my words insulting, but if your arguments do not denote a kind of homophobia, I am at a loss to describe them at all.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:56 PM

Hawk has more understanding than all of you put together.

You hate objective discussion because you all want the chance to fall back to the mob mentality of personal abuse.

Even tho' I have stated many times in this thread that I am not anti- homosexual, you all try to infer that I am.

This thread has nothing to do with how many homosexual friends I have or you have. It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined.

These people are not devils, or evil, or bigotted, or any of the other words you "liberals" like to trow around. they are Joe and Jane public....whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry my stance has deprived you of a "kill the bigot fest", but as Little Hawk says.....if you don't like it TOUGH!

Oh and Frank...I've spent my life fighting bigotry as a Communist Party member and as an anti war campaigner.
I have never denigrated any committed relationship, just don't lump me in with the lynch mob you fucker!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

Little Hawk, you use "appealing" as if you were quoting someone. I get the feeling you think you are quoting me. Now, I may have used 'appealing' up the road - I'm not going to go check - but in my last post to Ake I did not. If you would like to quote me, I said to Ake, "... male/male union bothers you far more than the idea of female/female. And yet the emotions are the same."

And yes. I do believe that male/male union bothers him more because he himself is male. Which, to me, means that his stated objections to homosexual relationships have little or nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of those relationships, only to do with his own distaste.

Which reaction, I think, is fair. But I would further point out that few of us spend any time visualizing others' marital activities or indeed have any inclination to do so. I have lesbian and gay friends- I wouldn't think of asking them any questions. I accept that we all figured out what we wanted to do.

Ake may feel differently about it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:41 PM

Yea, verily, Little Hawk.

The preferences of any one group of people should not take any kind of legal precedence over the preferences of any other. That would be a very poor principle to set.

Sexual relations with another male does not appeal to me, and never has. Likewise, I've heard of steak and kidney pie as being a fairly staple British dish. I don't care to try it. I did try kidneys once, and I simply could not go them. It was not the idea, it was the smell and the flavor. And escargot. They may be absolutely delicious. People have told me that they are. But I find the idea of eating snails very off-putting. I don't eat uncooked meat partly because I'm not fond of the flavor and partly because of the possibility of E. coli contamination.

I play chess, but I don't play bridge. Someone tried to teach me once, but I found that it bores the crap out of me. I don't watch "reality" television shows, and I never got into "Seinfeld" or "Friends." I do watch "Live from Lincoln Center" a lot. And I watch "The Red Green Show," which appears on my local PBS station.

I like swimming and fencing, but I've never been enthusiastic about the usual run of sports, like football, basketball, baseball, and hockey.

However—I do not care to have my preferences and aversions take on the force of law. It would make for a very dull world.

And I fail to see why some other feel they have the right to legally enforce their preferences and aversions.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:12 PM

"You were obviously married in a time when homosexuality was still illegal, probably homosexual marriage was unthinkable to you and your wife. You accepted the concept of traditional marriage and feel secure in that."

No, Ake, you're totally wrong. First of all, prior to our marriage, we did know one same-sex couple. One of the men had been a school chum of Barbara's, and discovered his sexual orientation when he entered his teens. He and his partner had been living together in a home they owned for over thirty years when he passed away. Cancer of the spine. He was an authority on both British history and the American Civil War, and he earned his living as a writer and a tutor. His partner was a college professor. Theater arts. They were good friends of ours, and of many other people—including married couples. They were accepted as a "couple" in their neighborhood and in the community at large—and in their church (Episcopalian). The only thing that set them apart was that they were the same gender and they were not legally married (not allowed). Other than that, they were as solid citizens as you will ever find anywhere. They were accepted as "partners." Had the law allowed them to marry, they would have been accepted as a married couple.

Second, homosexuality may be illegal—or may have been illegal—in the British Isles thirty years ago, but here in the United States, it was not. Perhaps in a few small, rural areas in the South, but not in any state, or major city that I am aware of.

Third, we had heard a little bit about gays wanting to get married like heterosexual couples. We felt, and with a few--very few—exceptions, most of our friends and acquaintances figured, "Why not?" The main exception was a couple who lived in the same apartment building where we live, and they were very hard-charging fundamentalist Christians. And they were mystified that we, whom they perceived as a church-going couple, were not disturbed by the idea. [So I have some experience with the very same arguments you are presenting] To us, and to many other heterosexual married couples, it was (and is) not "unthinkable" at all.

And as far as "traditional marriage" is concerned, when we married, I was 46 and Barbara was 40, and we both had careers. We decided that we would not have children. And there are many other heterosexual couples who, for various reasons, make the same decision. So—if one of the primary purposes of "traditional marriage" is procreation, how do you square that?

And as far as the "security" of traditional marriage is concerned, we were fully aware that marriage is not always a smooth and clear road, and that about half the marriages in this country end in divorce. But we did it anyway.

No, Ake, your arguments just don't wash.

And although in recent posts, you seem to be trying to back away from the idea that you have any kind of personal involvement with the issue, that doesn't wash either. No one spends as much time and energy arguing an issue, as you have in this thread, without having some very strong personal feelings on the matter.

Why?

Perhaps a bit of self-examination might be in order.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM

Well, heck, Ebbie, I find male/male union quite a bit less appealing than male/female union...and I bet if the truth were told, that is true of most of us here. Haven't most of us chosen male/female unions? That speaks for itself. As for female/female union...I find that reasonably in the middle ground, appeal-wise. In other words, I find it more appealing than male/male union, perhaps because I am male myself...perhaps because of things I've learned from Taoism regarding the use of sexual energy as pertains to good health.

So what????????? What difference does it make what I find appealing and what I do not? Should I be afraid to say so?

Seems to me that all I keep hearing on this thread is a lot of people just bending over backwards to PROVE to the whole world that they are NOT prejudiced, by God! This is dangerous to the spine after awhile, and it impresses no one. At least it doesn't impress me. I call it "PC Whiplash Syndrome".

I bet that at least 95% of the present population finds male/female union much more appealing than male/male union. So what????

95% of our population finds eating raw meat less appealing than eating cooked meat too...but that doesn't mean much. In Japan it is considered quite normal to eat raw meat. Matter of fact, I like sushi. Again...so what?

People may be allowed their preferences. It doesn't threaten me in the least if some males want to marry each other...that doesn't mean I need to find it "appealing" or that I'm some kind of bad, bigoted person if I say that I don't find it appealing. It doesn't mean I should cheerlead for them either and persecute anyone who doesn't...just to prove how goddamn liberal I am... (And I am liberal. Better believe it.)

To not personally find something appealing does not equate to denigrating it or attacking it. It simply indicates one's own tastes and preferences, that's all. We all have tastes and preferences. To be made afraid to even express them because it is not presently PC to do so does not help matters one bit. It's evidence of bigotry masquerading as liberalism.

I agree 100% with Strinsinger's last statement: "A committed relationship should not be denigrated in any way."

Correct. It should not. Nor should a religious choice! That doesn't mean I will necessarily find every form of committed relationship or every form of religious choice "appealing". I won't.

And if someone can't handle that? Tough.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:58 PM

Baseball and cricket both make as much sense as each other. But we don't feel it necessary to call them by the same name.

Look at the way that any mention of "football" here always gets someone in a tiz, because the same name is attached to different games.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:33 PM

A marriage between two committed people whether gay or straight makes absolute sense.
Anyone opposed to this for whatever reason is a bigot.

A committed relationship should not be denegrated in any way.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:31 PM

akenaton

could lead to nighmare conclusions (group marriage ect ect)

Actually it's "etc." (abreviation for et cetera) not "ect". How do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even get that right?

(Sounds more like a wet dream than a nightmare.)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:29 PM

I keep getting two impressions of your 'impersonal' stance, Ake.

Number One: That male/male union bothers you far more than the idea of female/female. And yet the emotions are the same.

Number Two: For an atheist you seem perilously close to relying on what may (or may not) be religion's views.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM

"...numerous legal entitlements are directly tied to membership in a marriage".

I understand thta - but it just strikes me that it would make more sense to tackle the issue at that point, in the same way as has happened in the UK, so that these same legal entitlements would apply to civil unions between people of the same sex, rather than trying to achieve the same result through changing the definition of marriage in a way that is clearly generating additional opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM

Thank you Amos, my little bastards have just claimed legitimacy.LOL

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM

My final words, just for Don.

You were obviously married in a time when homosexuality was still illegal, probably homosexual marriage was unthinkable to you and your wife. You accepted the concept of traditional marriage and feel secure in that.

Today the people who believe in traditional marriage see that redefinition could lead to nighmare conclusions (group marriage ect ect) They see the institution of marriage changed beyond recognition,needlessly...There is no security for these people or their children.

Case well and truly open and will remain so...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:40 PM

I think Ake would reply that, if you don't feel it does, it does not. But he asserts that some people believe the map and the territory are inextricably bound together, and for them, entering into a state of marriage MEANS they are heterosexual and not of the same gender.

Here are a few civil definitions:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)

two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"

a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
www.answers.com/topic/the-devil-s-dictionary

There are others which include the notion of sanctity of union between man and woman. But this is outside the bounds of the civil registration of marriage or any bounds the civil authority could put on it, unless they want to legally discriminate against people on the basis of their sex.

At present, such discrimination is generally illegal.

The church, however, can grant its title of marriage according to whatever torsion it cares to apply to the meaning.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:34 PM

Spake Ake:

The people who believe in conventional marriage, {defined for thousands of years as the joining of one man and one woman} would feel that redefinition was a knee jerk reaction to political correctness and modern minority morality. This redefinition would alter marriage forever and negate their right to a traditional marriage.

Have a care about that 'thousands of years' argument. For 'thousands
of years' the 'majority' you so revere would punish by various means
lawful and unlawful, those who were religious non-conformists. They,
too, spoke of their 'right' to live and raise their children in a
Papist state, or an Anglican country, or a Protestant one, or an
Islamic one, or a Mormon one, a Jewish one, etc. The presence of
non-conformists, or infidels, or Protestants, you see, or the legitimization of the faith of same, you see, reduced the legitimacy of their own faith. Which, of course, is the 'one true' religion.

And somehow, along the way, 'those people' became just a little less
human in the the eyes of the powerful and all-sacred majority. Or
a lot. A little or a lot less deserving of the same rights to 'life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

Ake, you have yet, in your broken-record rhetoric, shown one
single way in which the marriages of 'traditional marriage'
proponents are reduced in value by those of homosexuals. Not
one.

Your argument seems to be the 'because they say so' tautology.

On the other hand, very good arguments can be made for the
converse...that marriage has a variety of definitions. To
Catholics, for example, it is immutable between living partners.
To Protestants, not so much so. Muslims and Jews have entirely
different rules. Different sovereign states, too, differ on what
makes a marriage.

This has been the case 'for thousands of years.'

I have yet to hear a Catholic seriously claim that Catholic marriages
are diminished by Protestants' allowance for divorce and re-marriage,
except perhaps in the most abstract of moral theologies. Nor have
I ever heard a Catholic argue, with a straight face, that Protestants
who have divorced and remarried while their spouse was still living
ought not be accorded civil recognition of the union as a marriage.
This is even though, in the strictest sense and for religious
purposes, the Church of Rome doesn't recognize the second marriage
as being valid.

The whole argument about 'thousands of years' and the 'rights of
the majority' and 'the diminishing of traditional marriage' is a
subterfuge--- it is, purely and simply the refuge of those who
are looking for a ways to marginalize a group who practice what
Ake likes to call 'the homosexual lifestyle.'

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:48 PM

In December, Barbara and I will have been happily married for thirty years.

In our wide circle of friends and acquaintances, we know four same-sex couples, three of which are composed of men and one of women. Two of these couples are just living together, but have been for over ten years. Two others have been married in church ceremonies.

Even though this has been asked in one form or another all through this thread, no one, including Ake, has been able to provide an answer to it:

How do these same-sex couples, particularly those who are married, affect—in any way whatsoever--Barbara's and my marriage?

Well. . . ?

I didn't think so! Case closed!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:31 PM

McGrath ...I don't agree, to people committed to conventional marriage, the language is very important.

And even more important to the homosexual lobby.

Sorry I'm supposed to be finished here.....I'll get my coat.

Thanks to all for the argy-bargy....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM

Bee.. you are amazing.

First you apologise, then you insult me.
Do you not see the word homophobe as an insult?

No matter I am finished here, without intentionally insulting anyone I hope

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:25 PM

McGrath, I think that depends on where you are. In the UK, if it is correct (as I gather) that civil unions and marriages have the same legal rights, then you are entirely correct. In the US, where "marriage" has a legal meaning restricted to unions of a woman and a man, and numerous legal entitlements are directly tied to membership in a marriage, then it is very much a freedom and rights issue.

What is the old saying - "two nations divided by a single language"?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:06 PM

This is surely an argument about language, not about freedoms. Changing language can be important, sometimes essential - but in this particular context it seems pretty irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM

Akenaten: I apologise for snapping at you so severely in my last post. In my defense, your arguments cut close: I have dear lifelong friends who are the target of what I see (as in, it is my opinion) as your homophobic nonsense (as in 'having no sense'): it is hurtful to me to see their families compared with 'marrying dogs, cows', etc.

You still have not provided an actual reason why their marriages in any way harm or devalue the marriage of a man and woman, other than that the man and woman might not like the idea, or have religious objections. I didn't like the idea that a friend of mine planned to marry a known abusive alcoholic, but her marriage in no way 'devalued' mine.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:36 PM

A joke? Not at all. You seem to be saying that, if one set of people exercises a right, than that can adversely affect the value of another set of people's rights to do something similar. I have a right to drink a beer (or quaff a cider) and someone else has a right to their opinion of that action, but not the right to tell me I can't. Exactly parallel to that is the right of a homosexual couple to get married and the right of somebody else to their opinion of that action. However, the marriage of a homosexual couple has no effect whatsoever on the validity of a heterosexual couple's marriage or on any rights that marriage gives the participants. One person's rights should end where another's begins.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:17 PM

Well thats about the most ridiculous comparison in a tread chok full of ridiculous comparisons.............You havin' a joke Art?

Amos I am refering to civil definition. I have many friends who were married in Registrars office and would be very unhappy with a definition other than man/woman.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:16 PM

Or perhaps like saying that if everything with any alcohol in it had to be called "beer", that would make drinking much more confusing than it already is. Especially if you fancied a cider.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:56 AM

Is that not rather like saying that, if I have a beer in the privacy of my home (or in my local pub), I am affecting the rights of those who think that drinking alcohol should be banned?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:53 AM

Ake:

You are referring not to a civil definition, but to a cultural or religious bias. That's the whole point.

And no, it does not effect the rights of heterosexual marriages. In what way specifically fdo you think it does? Are their vows any the less true because others take them? Who said anything about cows, anyway? They make lousy housemates, I believe. Hard to toilet train.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:23 AM

Well for a start Amos your opinion of me was quite wrong, in that you thought I wanted to deprive peopole of their rights.
No one can have the "right" to do anything, without regard to the effect that right has on others. I could give numerous examples but I'm sure you grasp my meaning.

"Civil marriage should be the same for any two persons seeking union blessed by the state."    Your opinion. The vast majority of people who care about the institution of marriage would say, the definition of MARRIAGE is the union of man and woman. To redefine MARRIAGE as Man/Man, Man/cow, Man/Man/neither of the above, affects the rights of those people.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:58 AM

Ake:

Which of the three categories of issues do you think is just an opinion? Do you think the civil regulations and recordations of marriages are religious rituals? Or that the customs from different cultural legacies are civil or religious?


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:49 AM

And anyone who doesn't like this, then where is their Christain love for their fellow man/woman

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:48 AM

As a Christian I'm supposed to be against such tihngs, however if men and wmen want to do such things as same sex marriages then good on them and I hope that they all have a happy life together.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:23 AM

Now that should be a reasonable solution and deprive no one of their rights, but is totally unacceptable to homosexuals. Please provide a link to a policy statement by a major homosexual organization in the UK or US which makes that assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:30 AM

akenaton

There are many millions throughout the world who would not agree.
Are they to be allowed to debate their rights?

Of course they are but, curiously, none of them have chosen to do so on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:25 AM

McGrath says..... "So the most straightforward thing would be to give the partners in a civil union the same legal rights as in a civil marriage.
To the best of my understanding that is the situation with what are called "civil partnerships" in the UK, and in a number of other countries.   

Now that should be a reasonable solution and deprive no one of their rights, but is totally unacceptable to homosexuals, who see that solution as maintaining a *difference*, while refusing to accept that many millions see *their* lifestyle as very different from their own and the traditioal definition of what marriage should mean...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:05 AM

We all have opinions. Those are Amos's opinions.

There are many millions throughout the world who would not agree.
Are they to be allowed to debate their rights?
(Or shall it be the world according to Amos)

McGrath seems as usual to have all the common sense....and I can understand the words ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:06 AM

Amos - Yes, I think you've nailed it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:12 PM

Thanks kinely. And in Rapaire's case, any one or more person.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 09:58 PM

Well said, as usual, Amos. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 08:51 PM

I think we need to define some terms here.

The rights to certain protections, insurance, reciprocal ownership and joint ownership within a state are VICIL blessings. There should be NO difference in them based on the gender or lack thereof in the participants.,


The notion of sacrament, blessedness, Spiritual Truth, Virtue According to God's Code, Divine intent, The Sanctity of Virginity, as RELIGIOUS attributes. Religious marriage should comprise whatever the church says it shall include.

The practice of having a best man, giving away the bride, throwing rice or in some groups, corn, negotiating a bride price by a number of cattle, betrothing a daughter to someone chosen solely by the father, are CULTURAL QUIRKS and should be evolved according to the best insights and persuasion of which those partaking in the culture are capable.

The only part of any of this that can be mandated under law is the civil part. The rest is none of anyone's business except the people and organizations immediately participating.

Civil marriage should be the same for any two persons seeking union blessed by the state.
If, culturally, we get to the point where polyamory is m,ore widely accepted, then for any two or more consenting persons of age.



A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 07:50 PM

So the most straightforward thing would be to give the partners in a civil union the same legal rights as in a civil marriage, and leave aside the business of officially using the same term for it. I'd have thought that would take a lot of the heat off the issue.

To the best of my understanding that is the situation with what are called "civil partnerships" in the UK, and in a number of other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:44 PM

Christian attitudes to same sex marriage

"In the Church of England, many Anglican clergy already bless same-sex couples on an unofficial basis but there is no authorised ceremony in England."

Quakers have been welcoming same-sex unions for almost two decades.

"In 1987, British Quakers agreed that local groups could celebrate same-sex commitments through special acts of worship. The Quakers were the first member of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland to sanction the official blessing of same-sex relationships."

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM

Please note that I have not suggested that a civil union is the solution. I was responding to a question from McGrath, in which he asked why is it seen as unacceptable for different human partnerships to have different names? I answered that it would be perfectly acceptable [but unnecessary] provided that each kind of partnership brings its members the same rights.

The latter part is the key: a civil union must give the participants all of the rights that they might derive from a legal marriage performed (as is common in the US) by a Justice of the Peace. If someone wants to be sprinkled, blessed, or whatever by the clergyperson of their choice, that is an entirely separate matter. It follows then that if a civil union is identical to a marriage, no purpose would really be served by having separate names, other than to mollify the feelings of people who think a certain segment of the population is not entitled to use one word or the other.

The issue is the rights each partner to the association has, not whether you say "John is married to Ralph" or "John is Ralph's partner". And who is harmed if one says that "Mary is John's partner" rather than "Mary is married to John"?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:10 PM

Marriage systems
.........
"different cultures have developed a fascinating diversity of regulations and customs concerning prohibitions and preferences for marriage partners as well as expectations between spouses and in-laws. Prominent variations, such as arranged marriages, polygamy, and same-sexed unions provide a rich ethnographic record for speculating about why societies differ. They also challenge our tolerance of different moral conventions at the most basic level"

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:02 PM

Ake...I don't accept "Christian" marriage as a valid basis for civil legislation, as we do have separation of church and state (at least in the US). And as a self-proclaimed atheist, I'm surprised that you do. At any rate, if you're going to toss around terms like "thousands of years", you have to allow for more cultural input than just "Christian or civil" marriage. You brought Muslims into this by claiming that their beliefs are being compromised, so you can't go back now and say we're speaking of Christian values only. And as I pointed out earlier, you've been quick to claim that a majority of people *worldwide* find homosexuality disgusting. At some point you're going to have to nail yourself down to one position if you want your arguments taken seriously.

I didn't know it was possible for me to ramble MORE. I'll have to try harder. ;)