Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Same sex unions: Differences and Resolutions

By lpp in Culture
Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:48:58 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

Same sex unions are being debated in the US, with gay rights activists seeking full equality for their unions and conservative groups seeking to halt any attempt to alter the status quo. The crux of the problem is that economic issues are being bound to religious positions, where it is winner take all. This article explores the possibility of finding a compromise that at least minimally satisfies each side in the debate.


Gay rights activists have steadily gained ground in their attempts to legitimize same sex relationships in the eyes of the law in the United States, claiming they are due the same opportunities granted to heterosexual couples. Relatively recent gains include the granting of insurance privileges for partners of gay employees at several corporations and local municipalities. With equal fervor, though perhaps with less success, other groups, primarily associated with fundamentalist Christianity, have attempted to block any such legalization, hoping to maintain the status quo which also happens to fit neatly with their particular world view. The problem is that what is being debated suffers from a mismatch at the fundamental base of each group's arguments.

Marriage today has two faces or reasons for occurring. The first motivation for most couples to marry is social, a desire to formalize an arrangement where they can be recognized as a couple. Gays desire this right as well, again wishing to receive social sanction for emotions and desires they feel that are just as real as those between a couple of opposite sex. This function of marriage has at its root a religious basis. A second function is resource pooling, or economic benefit. Bear in mind I am concerning myself with society in the US as it stands today. In the past, in other places and times, couples may have been together primarily for survival, but today in the US at least, that isn't the problem, though from a financial perspective, it might come under discussion, depending on the couple in question.

Those who argue for the right to enjoy same sex unions on par with hetero unions typically argue from an economic or political perspective. Currently, a married couple receives benefits not available to same sex partners. One such benefit was and primarily remains insurance benefits granted to a spouse through the employer. This particular benefit has recently been granted to "partners" in a few cases and might have a chance to receive widespread adoption in the corporate and government sectors. This is a reasonable concern. Why should a couple desiring the same legal relationship as another couple be denied the same privileges as the other couple. Why should it matter if one couple is two men while the other couple is a man and a woman? In this regard, "marriage" is simply a contract, by which the partners can be considered a single entity for taxation purposes, are held mutually accountable for debt collection, may automatically act on behalf of the other in cases where legal action is necessary but no power of attorney has been explicitly granted, etc. Likewise, having bound themselves like this, it would seem reasonable to request the same benefits as other couples who have undergone this binding, again regardless of the gender of the couple's partners.

On the other hand, those who argue for the status quo talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. They wish marriage to remain as it has always been defined, the union of a man and a woman. They call it immoral, and this is reasonable given that the crux of their argument hangs on the moral definitions laid down by religious institutions which have the right to dictate what is moral and what is not for its members. The idea of social acceptance being granted to a couple, in opposition to what that society deems acceptable should be anathema to those who value the freedoms this country espouses. As a Christian, I should have the right to consider two men cohabitating as not being married, regardless of what the state may say. And I would be right. As a Christian, I would not be interested in the necessary economic ramifications of what they have done. I simply don't want to acknowledge their marriage. More importantly, even if the state dictated they were married, it would in no way affect how I view them, except to serve as a slap in the face to me and what I hold dear.

The problem is that those who wish to give same sex unions the same name as traditional unions are not only seeking economic equality but social acceptance and they are doing it through legal and political means. While economic equality can be so achieved (perhaps debatable given the civil rights record), social acceptance simply can not be legislated. Mind you, I said social acceptance, not social equality. Blacks achieved social equality, but social acceptance came later. Furthermore, in this case, I don't think it is right to try to force social acceptance in this case. If tolerance is the rallying cry, then tolerate those who diametrically oppose your point of view.

Likewise, those who wish to void out the term marriage when considering same sex unions not only wish to formalize the social rejection, but wish also to reject the economic benefits for same sex unions that are available to hetero unions. Yet, by doing this, they likely will lose their fight to retain their social distinctions in the law. Regardless of any stigma possibly attached to being gay, public opinion will not long tolerate this particular imbalance. And if, as I suspect, this is a losing battle for the fundamental Christians, tying the social aspect so tightly to the economic and political aspect will only result in losing both battles.

It would seem that the most reasonable approach would be to force the two concepts apart and let each stand on its merits. First, eradicate references to the concept of marriage from the laws. Marriage is already covered by the religious protections afforded by the Bill of Rights and need not be granted any special status. Second, a formal concept should be introduced for those wishing to gain the economic benefits currently afforded to married couples. Call it an M-Corp, similar to C-Corp and S-Corp already defined by law. It would effectively grant all of the financial and legal rights and obligations currently afforded to married couples to those who entered into it. How it is defined would be determined in the same manner that C-Corp and S-Corp corporations are defined, presumably at the state level. Third, grandfather in existing marriages into the new M-Corp. New M-Corps should be able to be instituted with no more difficulty than current marriages are. Fourth, no longer accept religious ceremonies as legally binding. There is no point in creating the new corporation if there is still a link between church and state.

Unfortunately, gay rights activists would bemoan the change in status. They would gain the rights, but lose the social acceptance, which perhaps some want more than the benefits. However, social acceptance simply will not come without time. And a legal remedy such as is being sought today will not bring them any closer to this goal. Likewise, religious purists will dislike the lack of recognition their ceremony would now hold. Here, it is simpler. Already they are not required to perform a ceremony to satisfy legal requirements, and their adherents are already required to have the ceremony performed in order to satisfy religious codes, where applicable. So little would change.

In summary, this is a problem with a viable solution, but one that is unlikely to be adopted for the simple reason that both sides want desperately to win the battle on all fronts. Unfortunately, the fronts have changed, shifted with the social changes experienced in the last decades, and while some things have changed, with expanded rights for gays, others have stayed the same, with pro-hetero groups still able to sway public opinion on certain issues. Perhaps eventually the issue will be moot, but for now, this seems the ideal solution.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Would you adopt this solution?
o Definitely 19%
o Probably 30%
o It comes close, but not a winner 9%
o It makes a few good points, but isn't a good idea 19%
o Unlikely 7%
o Definitely Not 14%

Votes: 84
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by lpp


Display: Sort:
Same sex unions: Differences and Resolutions | 501 comments (468 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden)
I think you Christians are loony, but.... (3.75 / 16) (#7)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 05:28:12 PM EST

Your solution is so mind-bogglingly appropriate and fair that I'll have to vote the article up anyway.

I hate it when people who are supposed to be reactionary bigots rise above their prejudices. Don't do it again!

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

religion is not the issue (3.77 / 9) (#8)
by Timo Laine on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 05:38:49 PM EST

That's a pretty good argument, but I think you've missed something: I'm not sure religion is the only issue here. I believe most anti-gay-marriage people are against gay marriages because they see them as "unnatural". Religious people say that unnatural is bad, because God created the natural order. But there are also non-religious groups who believe there is something wrong with unnatural things, e.g. some sociobiologists.

Ultimately, I don't think religion will be an obstacle. Religions have evolved greatly during their history, and will evolve in the future no matter what fundamentalists try to do. But what could be an obstacle is the belief that "unnatural" things are wrong, no matter what the underlying reasons for that belief are.

(Also, it should be pointed out that it is by no means obvious that gay relationships are unnatural. The argument would perhaps require at least a necessary link between sexual desire and procreation.)

The link... (4.00 / 2) (#57)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:07:30 AM EST

... how ironic. I think this link would require you to believe in evolution, which most fundamental Christians don't believe.

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

sure (4.00 / 2) (#65)
by Timo Laine on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:17:45 AM EST

But you don't have to be a Christian (or indeed a theist at all) to be able to believe that unnatural things are wrong. Still, I'm not saying they are wrong, just that there are many possible reasons for believing they are (but I personally don't really believe in any of those reasons).

[ Parent ]
No So Unnatural (4.50 / 2) (#99)
by GeneticFreek on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:41:08 PM EST

Check out the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl. You may find that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is not quite so uncommon and "unnatural" as you may think.

[ Parent ]
I didn't say that (4.00 / 3) (#124)
by Timo Laine on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 05:01:39 PM EST

You don't have to convince me. :-) I didn't say I think it is unnatural (nor did I say I am against gay marriages, because I am not). I said that some people think it is. Note that I also said that "it should be pointed out that it is by no means obvious that gay relationships are unnatural."

[ Parent ]
Only stupid people... (5.00 / 2) (#429)
by gzt on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 04:58:54 PM EST

...that are religious argue against homosexuality because it is unnatural. Scientismatics are far more likely to commit the naturalistic fallacy than religionists. At least, in the teachings of people who can be seen as, in some way, authoritative. The individual believers may differ, and they are excused.

At least for the Christian, whether or not an act or state is 'unnatural' is irrelevant, because in the Fallen world questions of what is normative simply don't apply. And this has been the teaching of most every source that could be considered authoritative within all Christianity, from Calvinist to Catholic and West to East.

[ Parent ]

Go further than that. (4.11 / 9) (#11)
by Stereo on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 06:10:22 PM EST

Why is the state involved in marriages? Mainly because of "the function of resource pooling, or economic benefit". If we apply what you suggest, we are going to consider whether two persons are pooling resources before giving them economic benefits, regardless of their affective relation. If I marry someone and do not share my resources with her or live with him or her, and even if we are affectionally involved, I should not get economical benefits from it. I should however get them if I decide to share resources with my best friend. Marriage would be irrelevant in these situations. Why should the state still be involved in marriages if they are only related to affective relations? Deregulate marriage, let people marry whenever they want to, without registering anywhere if they don't want to, let mormons have four wives if they want to, let men marry men and women marry women if they want to. Wouldn't this make everybody happy?

kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


Not only that (5.00 / 8) (#62)
by TheModerate on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 05:11:13 AM EST

But consider this argument:

Premise: As the conservatives argue, marriage is can only be, that is, essentially, a union between a man and a woman.

Premise: If marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman, then marriage must be a religious institution. This is because there is nothing else in this world that mandates that only two people of different sex can have marriage.

Inference: Marriage must be a religious institution.

Premise: Laws establishing or respecting religion are unconstitutional.

Inference: Laws establishing or respecting marriage must be unconstitutional.

In my opinion, marriage shouldn't be political at all. If gays want to be married, then they just need to find a church that will marry them. Then I wonder, why do you even need a church? If you live together and love each other, isn't that enough? If the politics and the financial incentives are out of the way, why get formally married at all? Put rings on your fingers, say "I do" and live happily ever after.

"What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer
[ Parent ]

That's exactly what concerns the CWFA (5.00 / 3) (#255)
by frankwork on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:13:15 PM EST

They realize that there's no constitutionally-protected reason for marriage to be limited to hetero couples. In fact you make a very good argument for why laws relating to traditional marriages are unconstitutional.

Hence all the brouhaha over the Federal Marriage Amendment.

(The CWFA is the Concerned Women for America. Here's a taste:

Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.
So I guess we no longer need to allow republicans to vote republican. That would be a special right, since they still have the right to vote for democrats, just like democrats do. Limiting all elections to democrats doesn't discriminate on the basis of party affiliation)

[ Parent ]
Another way to look at it. (5.00 / 2) (#426)
by DavidTC on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 04:15:55 PM EST

It's always fun to look at it another way...not as homosexual rights, but as sexual discrimination. Only men are allowed to marry women. In other words, if you are a woman, you cannot do something that you could if you were a man, i.e., marry a woman.

It's sexual discrimination, plain and simple.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Well Done! (4.30 / 13) (#13)
by Pluto on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 06:32:52 PM EST

You've put a lot of mental energy into this, and I think your proposed solution, while legally cumbersome, addresses the meaningful issues.

Especially at issue, are rights of inheritance, medical power of attorney, and other rights that occur when one becomes a legally-recognized family-member of the other. I think combining a Living Trust with a M-Corp would indeed get the job done.

It's interesting that you've identified "social acceptance" as a core issue that gays have for insisting on the word "marriage." I had overlooked that for this reason:

I live in a sector of society where hetros consider marriage a social embarrassment (something only trailer trash and Jerry-Springer-Show-hopefuls engage in). The homos in this sector consider the gays who demand "marriage rights" to be exceedingly base. (Don't ever get them started on "Gay Days" events!)

Thus, I hold a third position to the entire issue (much like an entomologist watching bugs mate).

IMHO, your view brings another refreshing angle and deserves to be read.
_______________________________________
Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson

Rather, it's elegant (4.50 / 4) (#24)
by Daelin on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 10:32:53 PM EST

I think the M-corp is a wonderfully elegant solution.  Legally, it's like re-using code.  The law is simplfied, made more consistent.  Corporate law is a bit of a mess that needs a serious re-enineering, but it's an elegant concept.

Conversely, I think conservatives would object to this, because it opens the door to M-corp binds between more than two people.  On the other hand, it also opens the door to an easier way to formalize the legal powers of heirs, which conservatives would love, except that the common frame work would give "common people" something they already do with limited partnerships and LLCs.

[ Parent ]

Any sysadmin jobs in that area? (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#419)
by dirtmerchant on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 02:34:46 PM EST


-- "The universe not only may be queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think" - JBS Haldane
[ Parent ]
Who is discussing this? (1.69 / 13) (#19)
by debacle on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 09:27:46 PM EST

Liberals on kuro5hin, or the United States Congress?

"Same sex unions are being debated in the US, possibly in other nations as well. The problem is, it is an economic and political issue being tied to moral and religious relationships."

How about we rewrite the intro, and put some meat into it, so at least we know what we're talking about?

And hell, get rid of all the commas.

"with expanded rights for gays" s/rights/anuses/

Teehehe

It tastes sweet.

good point (3.50 / 4) (#20)
by lpp on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 09:59:24 PM EST

I've altered the preview text a bit.

[ Parent ]
I'm not gay (3.43 / 16) (#21)
by mrman on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 10:07:23 PM EST

But I wouldn't mind marrying my friend.

Marriage, child-rearing, and common fallacies. (4.55 / 20) (#26)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 10:37:03 PM EST

Gay marriages can and do produce children.
  1. Lesbian couples have used artificial insemination to have children for over two decades, and gay male couples are increasingly having their own genetic children through surrogate mothers.
  2. Medical advances on the horizon will soon enable lesbians to have children that are genetically descended from both partners, and even allow for men to physically carry the baby to term.
  3. Healthy but childless couples, gay or hetero, can always help the world's abandoned children by adopting one. It could even be argued that governments should be encouraging gay couples to adopt, in order to fight poverty and overpopulation in developing countries.
It's time for people to stop using the "Oh, but they can't have children!" cliche, which has been wrong since it was first coined.

Even if that were true, marriage is not entirely about having children. It is also meant to represent a real, meaningful commitment of love and mutual dedication between two people. In that sense, there certainly is no basis for objection to gay marriage.

I do think, however, that the idea in this article is very clever. A good social hack, if you will. It requires both sides of the debate to make concessions, but also brings gains to both sides. It greatly simplifies marriage laws, and levels the field entirely.

Of course, it is also quietly revolutionary. The implications of this change would ripple throughout the body of common law, having unexpected side-effects everywhere. For example, consider how different divorce proceedings would be if adultery became meaningless.

And why should we limit this contract to two people?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

You're forgetting some things :) (5.00 / 1) (#194)
by ksandstr on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 10:19:13 AM EST

Namely that not everyone who would be one side of a gay or lesbian couple is in fact strictly homosexual.  This is to say, they might have the custody of children from a previous relationship.

This alone has been one of the key points in the debate about mutual adoption in homosexual marriage ("registered relationships", rather) in Finland.


Fin.
[ Parent ]

A point (3.00 / 2) (#406)
by itsbruce on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 11:28:58 AM EST

Medical advances on the horizon will soon enable lesbians to have children that are genetically descended from both partners, and even allow for men to physically carry the baby to term.

That is highly debatable. With regart to the lesbian parents: messing with ova is a very tricky business. Most of the clones produced so far have had serious genetic/health problems. Creating a healthy creature involves a lot more than stuffing some DNA into an egg and much about the process is still not understood.

As for the part about men carrying foetuses to term, that isn't even close.

Not that it really has any relevance to the main topic of debate, here.


--It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
[ Parent ]

Marriage, child-rearing, and common fallacies. (1.64 / 28) (#27)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 10:45:58 PM EST

Gay marriages can and do produce children.
  1. Lesbian couples have used artificial insemination to have children for over two decades, and gay male couples are increasingly having their own genetic children through surrogate mothers.
  2. Medical advances on the horizon will soon enable lesbians to have children that are genetically descended from both partners, and even allow for men to physically carry the baby to term.
  3. Healthy but childless couples, gay or hetero, can always help the world's abandoned children by adopting one. It could even be argued that governments should be encouraging gay couples to adopt, in order to fight poverty and overpopulation in developing countries.
It's time for people to stop using the "Oh, but they can't have children!" cliche, which has been wrong since it was first coined.

Even if that were true, marriage is not entirely about having children. It is also meant to represent a real, meaningful commitment of love and mutual dedication between two people. In that sense, there certainly is no basis for objection to gay marriage.

I do think, however, that the idea in this article is very clever. A good social hack, if you will. It requires both sides of the debate to make concessions, but also brings gains to both sides. It greatly simplifies marriage laws, and levels the field entirely.

Of course, it is also quietly revolutionary. The implications of this change would ripple throughout the body of common law, having unexpected side-effects everywhere. For example, consider how different divorce proceedings would be if adultery became meaningless.

And why should we limit this contract to two people?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

Please modbomb this repost to oblivion. thx. (3.14 / 7) (#29)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 10:52:04 PM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Done [nt] (3.40 / 5) (#31)
by Daelin on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:01:03 PM EST



[ Parent ]
right or popular? (3.25 / 12) (#28)
by daishan on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 10:46:46 PM EST

Equality is equality it's not a popularity contest. Marriage at it's core it a tool for social engineering. it is designed to predicate monogomy.

Married people have lower rates of substance abuse, STD's, they live longer and often happier lives. These are very good reasons to extend monogomous values to the gay community. There is a real and tangible economic benefit to promoting marriage and monogomy, marriage for same sex couples increases that benefit. I don't see a rational motivation for denying same sex marriage unless you want to kill queers or at least make their lives as miserable and marginalized as possible.

Perhaps some people will get annoyed by the tactics, but fences can be mended after equality is achieved.

I want them to seek help... (1.45 / 11) (#56)
by Stick on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:03:22 AM EST

And get rid of this disgusting mental disorder.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Question (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by Blah Blah on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:13:24 AM EST

Are you just a troll, or do you actually believe what you're saying?

[ Parent ]
Why pick one? (5.00 / 3) (#251)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:04:45 PM EST

Two great tastes that go great together.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
What a bunch of bull! (4.16 / 6) (#93)
by Vesperto on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:15:49 PM EST

Married people have lower rates of substance abuse, STD's, they live longer and often happier lives. - now that's interesting! Care to explain how marriage miraculously prevents and reduces all of this? 'Cos last time i heard, adultery is still the biggest cause for divorce, alcohol is the biggest cause for domestic violence (upon your spouse), STD's are only avoided by safe sex, not god's divine intervention (but you can claim marriage works if they become life-long partners and don't cheat - this happens in theory) and i'm really curious to know how did marriage became the fountain of youth.

Or, you feel lonely and want some attention.

If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

I know what is wrong with marriage (5.00 / 2) (#177)
by daishan on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:41:34 AM EST

geez! reading you one wonders why anyone het or homo would get married in the first place. Lets just leave it up to the churches to decide who gets married, you know the constitution goes on about separation of church and state ain't that a two way street?

Vesperto; I only refer to marriage as a beneficial tool of social engineering, people get married in court, I am assuming the benefit exists. You only mention what is wrong with it and avoid the basic arguement of extending the right to marry to gays and lesbians.

My claims regarding the benefits of marriage are simply hearsay, told to me by married heterosexuals. One persons pleasure is another's poison, I would prefer we each get to choose for ourself. It's called freedom.

Give me time to pull some stats out of my arse my statements can be backed up. I do however disagree that marriage is a cause of spousal abuse, it isn't, it's just a precondition.

[ Parent ]

So they say. (5.00 / 2) (#271)
by Vesperto on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:00:48 PM EST

I'm all for equal rights for homosexuals, i have no problem whatsoever with that. What i was trying to say is that it's stpid to fight to want to get married in a church because that would go against a lot of what catholic churches defend. But then again, they've been sorta updating themselves lately, at least they don't burn people for holding other beliefs anymore. Surely some priests will marry gays, but that's their decision, not gay's. Bottom line i don't even care, i'm not a religious person and i strongly believe religon and law should be 100% separate.

So assuming most churches and temples out there won't marry gays, at least not on this milenium, why not fight for your rights as far as the law goes? That's why i proposed those unions, they're becoming comon all over europe.

As for domestic violence, i ddin't say marriage causes it, i said it leads to divorce. Granted, the couple can be married on living a longterm not-recognized-by-the-church relationship.

If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

the fight is worth it (5.00 / 2) (#308)
by daishan on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:08:04 PM EST

My family is on the more liberal side of Evangelicial Lutheran, perhaps I am more accustomed to being able to change the teachings of a church by debating the meaning and intent of written word. I understand the episcopalians are makeing some interesting changes as I write.

I abandoned the church when a pastor blamed my brother's death on his homosexuality (AIDS), saying he deserved what he got. The Church (at least this one) has changed since then and so will other churches, maybe not quickly but eventually. Not all churches need to recognize same sex marriage, just some churches and the government.

The idea of "unions" smacks of a separate but equal status, that status has been proven to be not so equal when applied to African Americans, and I don't want us go down that garden path again.  

[ Parent ]

I'd quit as well! (5.00 / 1) (#328)
by Vesperto on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 04:17:21 AM EST

Did that pastor say your brother had aids because he was a homosexual and that therefore he deserved to die?!

The idea of unions is not new at all and, at least here, is not limited to gays (but i'll have to check on that). Indeed it would only be equal if gays could marry legaly as well; but what does that have to do with African Americans? These laws are/will be new and i'm sure colorblind as well... no?

If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

invalid premise (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by bolthole on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:38:43 PM EST


Married people have lower rates of substance abuse, STD's, they live longer and often happier lives. These are very good reasons to extend monogomous values to the gay community.

This is saying in essense, "I want the gay people to lead happier, more fulfilling lives, so lets make laws for them".

Apart from being an invalid foundation to make a law (laws arent supposed to be made "to make people happy"), it is invalid logic in and of itself. The abovementioned benefits of marriage dont come from a piece of paper signed by a judge. They come from the two parties being COMMITTED TO EACH OTHER. Making a law on gay marriage doesnt make that happen. That happens as a personal decision inside each individual.

It doesnt matter whether that decision happens as part of a legal contract, or a religious ceremony, or just as a quiet promise between the two people involved. What matters is the committment and integrity of the two people involved.

Now, on the other hand, there are religious benefits to marriage. But after all, that has no business being made into a law either.


[ Parent ]

This does not go far enough. (3.47 / 17) (#32)
by Mr Hogan on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:06:28 PM EST

Gays SHOULD be allowed to get married - and if one of them thinks himself blue boy player then I want his man-wife tell him "see here Bruce I'm not going to get mad this time no I'm going to get LEGAL on your ass tell you that we've been living together 5 years which the law says we're common-law married - half of what is yours is mine - surprise!" And that's just the BEGININNG - aside from blessing gay couples with all the expenses and responsibilities NORMAL breeding couples must endure I want the state to force gays adopt a gaggle of snot-nosed kids will spend their money for 14 years then resent them for 40 - and then I want Bruce should be too fucking busy clipping coupons and washing tattered linen to go to the gym twice a day like he used to - and I want he gets fat and bitter and wide like a church door - and then I want him and his husband should have a mother-in-law named Eunice - and a useless brother-in-law can't hold a job too - and all the good things happen to regular couples I want it happen to nice homogay couples too! All the time THEY have MONEY to buy dinners at fancy restaurants and sex toys and nice clothes authentic labels and talc for the nose - because the BITCH isNT takINg it away from them Lkie she takes it away from ME using my credit CARD to buY FUCKING BONE CHINA - on purpOSe shE does That just To pisS me OFF - I KNoW iT because who the FUCK needs a diFFerent set of CHINA 0ne for every religious and civil HoliDay? NO ONE! WELL THEN FUCK HER!!!

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.

Hmm... (4.00 / 2) (#36)
by epepke on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:20:37 PM EST

Offensive, no doubt, but substantially accurate.

I support gay marriage partially because of general liberal/libertarian impulses, partially because I know gay couples who are candidates for marriage, but also partially because I would enjoy laughing my ass off when they discover that it isn't the fairy-tale deal they imagine.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
No man it's not offensive. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Mr Hogan on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:31:45 PM EST

It's love the real deal what we practice our whole life for everything else is food and rape, then tilt.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Augh on above. They're already married. (4.66 / 3) (#229)
by ibsulon on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:23:13 PM EST

The law just doesn't recognize it yet.

[ Parent ]
yeah (4.00 / 2) (#102)
by Battle Troll on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:55:46 PM EST

Gay marriage should be compulsory, damnit.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Straight people who debate homosexuality. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
by Mr Hogan on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:01:02 PM EST

Are patronizing cock suckers or the devil pick one - both sides keep homosexuals under glass in the living room for the guests to choke on words argue in the abstract legitimize a prejudice through constant barking reference - then, tired, run out of reenacted sentences, go home get blown by their skanky better halves. Well fuck that - gays should drown Christ in a cum bath screw in public until straight people bleed from the eyes go blind problem solved.

Let me explain something to you: debating variations of "don't put that in there" is just that - DEBATE - barking! - a lot of USELESS WORDS! There is NO supernatural consequence happens if you put that in there.

Word. People are whacked.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

You're right. (3.00 / 2) (#225)
by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:09:35 PM EST

The "consequence" is very real and painful.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HOMOSEXUAL MENACE!! (3.00 / 2) (#234)
by Mr Hogan on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:54:05 PM EST

Friends I have noticed on this websites many people trapped in language and in memories - some they look for God between the pages in the scripture under every rock and in the bushes they find reasons fags shouldn't fuck. WHAT ABOUT THE KITTENS? Others they wake up in the middle of the night a drizzling rain outside their window and in their bellies is a disconnected broken feeling for the girl they left behind - written up here in the kuro5hin I read it in their diaries so lugubrious - I feel your pain my brothers the geeks you dorks - I am at this instant listening to a dirge between the headphones we are ONE. But still I must remind you there were four black waiting kittens their faces pressed against the screen this morning I woke up - two weeks ago they lost their mother for them I am the ONE - I forgot the night before to leave the milk inside the saucer in the garden by the bed of flowers fallen insects on ground. Forget the homosexual menace! What about the kittens?

If I forget to feed them they will die. If they die what good is all the useless barking about the things do homosexuals in the dark a million miles away from me my body and my mind? No good at all.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

The homosexual menace? (3.00 / 2) (#262)
by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:30:50 PM EST

The homosexual menace is a menace they inflict upon themselves.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

fuckin a man (3.00 / 4) (#35)
by supahmowza on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:14:45 PM EST

Excellent work in my book.  A good look at the issue AND a *viable* solution, now this I like. +1FP


Drugs are the solution to all life's problems
Well, drugs and handguns
Hellllllllo? (1.93 / 16) (#40)
by fae on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:38:16 PM EST

Gays want to get married because they're jealous of normal people.

They won't stop until they have added legal interceptions into religions, so that gays are guaranteed to be married by the church of their choice.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity

I'll have you know (4.75 / 4) (#41)
by debacle on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:40:53 PM EST

That not a single gay marriage in the Unites States has ended in divorce.

That's a much higher success rate than heterosexual marriages.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

not true. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
by aphrael on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:30:06 AM EST

There's an article in this month's Legal Affairs entitled "My Gay Divorce" which chronicles an attempt by a civilly-unioned gay couple to get a divorce.

[ Parent ]
Damn you aphrael. (5.00 / 3) (#86)
by debacle on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 12:34:46 PM EST

I was trying to be funny.

Go fuck a guy, or something.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

Of course not (4.00 / 2) (#52)
by richarj on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:38:24 AM EST

Because there are no marriages to end in divorce. One of the reason Gays want marriage is so they can be protected when the relationship breaks up.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
Do you realise how long a divorce takes? (1.40 / 15) (#55)
by Stick on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:01:32 AM EST

They're all dead of AIDS before the thing actually gets through the courts.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Not just gays. (5.00 / 15) (#64)
by it certainly is on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 05:27:24 AM EST

Atheists throw cheese and wine parties simply because they're jealous of communion.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

LOL, Sir, you are a card (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:06:26 PM EST

I'll have to remember that at my next Bible study meeting.

[ Parent ]
Why is this on K5? (1.68 / 16) (#42)
by Night In White Satin2 on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:42:33 PM EST

Homosexuality has no place on K5.... Oh the irony..

marketing woes (3.40 / 10) (#43)
by ph317 on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 12:35:30 AM EST


Really, the primary problem with the acceptance of glbts is one of marketing.  For all the social graces of the modern gay man, he can't figure out that he's marketing himself to the straight world all wrong.  Straight people don't like to see two flamboyant guys hanging all over each other.  They don't like dikes either.  But everyone, whether they admit it or not, and whether it agrees with their morals or not, creams over the sight of two hot non-dikey-looking chicks making out.  If the face of gay rights on advertisements and protests and marches was a couple of hot chicks kissing, the laws would change in gays' favor much faster, I gaurantee :)

Err.... (3.00 / 5) (#45)
by gjetost on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 12:52:53 AM EST

They call it immoral, and this is reasonable given that the crux of their argument hangs on the moral definitions laid down by religious institutions which have the right to dictate what is moral and what is not for its members.
Umm, no. In many cases yes, organized religion does try to feed you some unfounded stuff (like eternal torture) but it this case the Bible itself is the one that dictates what is moral. So you'll have to blame the original writers for this one.

Yes (3.00 / 4) (#59)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:11:28 AM EST

Blame God. Most people do.

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

Leviticus (4.87 / 8) (#72)
by moonpolysoft on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:01:15 AM EST

The section of the Bible that condemns homosexuality is leviticus. As is often what happens in fundamentalist preaching, the passages are taken out of context.

Leviticus 18:22 says "You may not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." In addition to this, Leviticus gives instructions for treating leprosy, routines for dealing with women on the rag, and rules dealing with the daughters of priests. For instance, if a priests daughter "plays the whore," she shall be burned alive (21:9). Amongst other things prohibitted: letting a woman into church less than 42 days from giving birth, seeing your uncle naked, beards having anything other than square corners, and sanctioning the purchase of slaves from neighboring states.

Therefore, if we accept the homosexuality rule, everything else needs to be accepted as well. This is ludicrous, of course, but it points out that one cannot simply pick and choose which rules to adhear to.



[ Parent ]
Romans 1:26,27 (4.50 / 4) (#85)
by gjetost on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 12:26:22 PM EST

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[ Parent ]
New Rule (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by nklatt on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:23:24 PM EST

Okay, so now the rule is: If it shows up in the Bible twice He actually meant it?

[ Parent ]
New vs. Old Law (4.85 / 7) (#91)
by lpp on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:34:35 PM EST

Christians are not required to obey the old law, laid down in the Old Testament, though it does serve as a guide, it isn't law for us today. The law today is given in the New Testament.

The point of your parent poster was that objections to homosexuality based on Leviticus are improper, but that those objections can be based on text found in the New Testament. The verse from Romans is not the only indicator of God's objection to homosexuality in the New Testament, but was the verse the poster chose to use.

[ Parent ]

Please translate "Impressive Language" (4.00 / 2) (#126)
by phliar on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 05:20:24 PM EST

I think it ludicrous when some Christians thrown around all that "spake" and "begotten" crap. (Even sillier when Mormons quote from their book.) Why not use a plain language book that people can understand easily if you want to convince them to take on your faith?

So what does "for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections" mean? And this passage seems to suggest that it's only when two men "burned in their lust one toward another" it's bad, whereas women are not allowed to "change the natural use into that which is against nature." That natural use of what? If a woman uses a fork to pick her teeth, will she burn in hell forever?

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Key point here: (3.00 / 4) (#140)
by tkatchev on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:14:37 PM EST

and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I.e. "they bring their own punishment upon themselves by their actions" when translated into Colloqual American.

Which is a fact that is completely supported by all modern scientific and statistical research.

It really makes me wonder to what lengths of mental gymnastics people will go just to justify their hate of God.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

No, it is not supported (4.00 / 2) (#173)
by Blah Blah on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:08:14 AM EST

and especially not by "all" scientific and statistical research. Does any of this statistical research show that gays get what is coming to them? Come on, you're going to have to try a little harder than that, tkatchev. At least provide some evidence to back up your "arguments".

[ Parent ]
You're wrong. (1.66 / 6) (#185)
by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:51:04 AM EST


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Quote all you'd care to... (4.50 / 2) (#155)
by moonpolysoft on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:42:51 PM EST

...the point still remains: one cannot simply take a passage out of its context and then use it as an arguing point without being hypocritical. Arbitrarily rejecting some pieces of the bible as false or only applicable to the time in which they were written calls the entire text into question. Therefore quoting scripture is not proof of anything excepting your memory capacity for obscure writings.



[ Parent ]
You stole my idea! +1FP (4.44 / 9) (#47)
by TheEldestOyster on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:15:25 AM EST

I've been espousing an idea like this for a while. Get the government out of religion while still allowing individuals to recognized as one entity by the state. This not only solves issues with gay marriage, but also with many forms of polygamy. Or even beyond that. Say that I've grown up with my best friend. I'm not "in love" with him, I don't want to fuck him, but I consider him more my family than the one I was born into. I trust him to handle my affairs after death, or my potential children, more than my blood family. He reciprocates this same trust with me. Why shouldn't we be allowed to specify all this in one simple contract agreement?

(Yay for rambling.)
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred

But you can anyway can't you? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
by livus on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:30:24 AM EST

an enduring power of attourney and a will should do both those, no?

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Not a will, unless the amounts are small. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
by Pluto on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:54:29 AM EST

A Living Trust (which you can purchase online software to create) will allow one partner to care for the other in times of illness and incompetence.

The trust incorporates a durable Power of Attorney (for taking over business affairs) as Medical POA (for health issues),and a pour-over will for personal property not listed in the trust.

A regular will may have to go through probate, and in many states it is illegal to cut out family beneficiaries. Wills are easily contested.

Trusts are private documents, and they are free of state laws. In fact, they are not even recorded. Either party can break the trust at any time.

Trusts are especially good for older couples, or if one of the members falls ill.

For younger people just starting out on their careers together, a family partnership business is the way to go. It already has all the mechanisms for dissolution built it.

Most government issues are not significant. Taxes are no big deal. The more serious problems comes in health care and aging, pensions and social security. Without rights afforded to a long-term life-partner (spouse), the surviving partner could be vulnerable and at risk for indigence. That will still need to be addressed, but these are Federal issues, not state issues.

Once the paperwork is in place, the couple merely needs to live together to become, in time, commonlaw married. Which is what the christians didn't want to see in the first place.

What's worse, for gays, it that it is fraught with serious laws, such as bigamy (think prison), unless the couple goes through a real divorce on top of everything else.

Like I said earlier. This is cumbersome.
_______________________________________
Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
[ Parent ]

My solution to the gay marriage problem. (4.37 / 8) (#49)
by Psycho Dave on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:32:10 AM EST

Find a church that recognizes and marries gay couples.

When such marriages are not recognized by the government, complain that they are violating your First Amendment rights to worship.

If fundamentalists have a problem with it, fine. The fundamentalists don't have to invite gay couples over for dinner.

Otherwise, shut up you flatworlder fucks.

I have a better solution (1.31 / 22) (#54)
by Stick on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:59:41 AM EST

Shoot the gays and burn their bodies.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
create your own religion (5.00 / 2) (#114)
by Jack McCoy on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:26:24 PM EST

  • Universal Life Church
  • Church of the Seven Planes

    et, voila.
    -- Jack
    [ Parent ]

  • Torcon 3 (World SF Con in Toronto) (3.66 / 3) (#409)
    by ab762 on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:01:45 PM EST

    One of the program book items for Torcon 3 Labour Day weekend in Toronto was listed as marriages -- four couples, all male, were married by a United Church of Canada minister. All legal -- in Canada. Folksinger Janis Ian and her partner also made it legal in Toronto, then honeymooned at the con.

    However, this story in Planet Out shows that U.S. border control can be unsympathetic.

    A note for those considering a trip north (or south if you're in Detroit) -- Ontario has no residence requirements for marriage. But, it does require residence to grant a divorce.

    Claimers and Disclaimers: I am a Christian, (of the charismatic, speaking in tongues, Alpha course, evangelical sort, no less!), have been married for 19 years, and have no problem with extending the definition of marriage to same-sex couples. WWJD? History is unclear. St. Paul certainly had a problem with certain acts ... whether those acts in that context map to modern notions of consensual egalitarian homosexuality is another story. Steve Stirling pointed this out at another occasion during Torcon. Jesus had a record of not doing what the religious people expected.


    Some dumb Canadian
    [ Parent ]
    Multiple partner unions (4.42 / 7) (#51)
    by simul on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:30:32 AM EST

    4 people could then form an M-corp.

    Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks
    Indeed, why not? n/t (3.66 / 3) (#53)
    by Spatula on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:38:42 AM EST


    --
    someday I'll find something to put here.
    [ Parent ]
    why stop at 4 ? (4.40 / 5) (#61)
    by Prophet themusicgod1 on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:42:34 AM EST

    it takes a community to raise a child. i myself was not raised by my parents, in whole, but by piano teachers, coaches, uncles, aunts, teachers, officers and staff cadets, nevermind the radio personalities, internet voices and great authors that have shaped me. imagine the possibilities! [sarcasm]no...im not endorsing a brave new world in any way...[/sarcasm]

    and honestly, a deme or large band could grow stable enough to last, with a little help...couldn't it?

    i must comment, though, that the 'social acceptance' you beleive blacks to have has not come. at least, not here anyway. my old hometown had very little racism, but then again, it was pretty much _all white_ and there was really no need for it. the natives didn't really interact with us caucasians much, and there were a few places (such as highschool) that valued multiculturalism, et cetera. you can imagine my surprise when i moved to a new city filled with neonazis, skinheads, and white-anglo-saxon-catholic-whathaveyou ranging from mild inacceptances ("i wont date black guys") to outright racial hatred mind you, the feeling appears to be not restricted to the wascs in the direction of negroes...

    from the black-pro-racist brainwashing in music, rap, and attitude to the BLATANT hatred and racism stored in natives here. people walking around in 'native pride' gear scare the hell out of me, and i'm even part native! don't even think for a moment that there is universal social acceptance for blacks, or that racism doesnt exist. it does, and will continue to be, for a long time.

    as for the rest? doesn't really effect me -- ill never get mairried, and really what people do to eachother in the comfort of a warm bed is neither interesting to me or really important to me. and a statement 'im fucking her' in the form of mairrage follows this.
    "I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
    [ Parent ]
    Err... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Zulq on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:37:10 PM EST

    Why would your parents want an M-Corp with your piano teacher?

    I think that there should be some intent in the relationship.

    For example, if you stopped paying your piano teacher or stopped having piano lessons unless you are friends with your piano teacher the relationship has ended - this temporary inclusion shouldn't be allowed with multi partner unions.

    Otherwise, I'm all in favour of multiple partner unions even if they are called something silly like an M-Corp... ;)

    Z x.
    [ Parent ]

    Questions regarding Common Law (4.54 / 11) (#60)
    by ti dave on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:22:35 AM EST

    Two points you haven't mentioned.

    1. Under Common Law, one cannot be compelled to testify against one's spouse.
    The relationship between spouses is considered priveleged, but communications between business partners are not.

    How would your proposal treat this principle?

    2. Several states recognise Common Law marriages and treat those involved in them as if they were married under the auspices of the State.

    Would this type of union be recognised under your proposal?

    If Common Law couples failed to take any steps to incorporate their union, per your plan, would they no longer be considered married?

    I'm almost drunk enough to go on IRC. ~Herring

    Re: Common Law (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by lpp on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:32:18 AM EST

    Good points.

    1. If Common Law M-Corps were somehow recognized, they should receive the full advantages of a regular M-Corp including those you listed, unless those advantages are deemed necessary for removal.

    2. I would suggest grandfathering them in, but I frankly don't know how you would be able to create them anymore since an M-Corp would require filing paperwork with the government, which is something a Common Law marriage typically does not require.

    Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    Been there, done that. (4.35 / 17) (#63)
    by megid on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 05:15:00 AM EST

    Already available in Germany since I can think of: You have state marriage (available to all) and church marriage (available only to heteros or to all, depending on the sect (evangelism/catholocism) and the tolerance level in that particular state/church/whatever). The church marriage is completely symbolic and has no meaning whatsoever on your economic/judical status.

    Separation of state and church DOES work pretty well. I'd recommend you to further it in your country.

    --
    "think first, write second, speak third."

    Yes, but... (4.33 / 3) (#66)
    by crudpuppy on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:46:00 AM EST

    ...that doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage - which we also do have here, but it's explicitly separated from "normal" marriage.
    Marriage is still "holy" in some way - it is protected by the constitution. Gay marriage is just a packet of privileges that could be revoked anytime by the next conservative government.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, you have to work on that. (4.66 / 3) (#79)
    by megid on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 10:03:59 AM EST

    Lots of states want to complete their state/religion separation, but its difficult -- it certainly was and is, in Germany society (just think about the stemcells/abortion debate, both of which are heavily influenced by the church). Turkey is having similar problems as the US.

    All I can say is try, try, try. One day humanity WILL succeed. Its a good way.

    --
    "think first, write second, speak third."
    [ Parent ]

    I don't think so. (4.50 / 2) (#94)
    by Fen on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:17:00 PM EST

    Last I checked, only Holland and Belgium and Canada have marriage available to all (the legal kind).
    --Self.
    [ Parent ]
    Only Holland and Belgium. (3.80 / 5) (#133)
    by Dr Caleb on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:49:31 PM EST

    Canada does not yet allow same sex marriages. Two Canadian Provinces do, Ontairo and British Columbia, due to the fact that Human Rights charges were filed there, and upheld. Those provincial supreme courts have forced those provinces to allow same sex marriages.

    The Federal Government is debating changes to allow same sex marriage, by providing draft legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for their review and reccommendations.

    Even if the Supreme Court, and the Federal Government enact this legislation, the province of Alberta will enact a part of our Constitution called the "not withstanding" clause which will make Alberta exempt from this new legislation.

    We are not anti-gay, we are pro-hetero. We just oppose the dilution of the word 'marriage'.

    Civil union, civil co-habitation, spousal contract, M-contract - call it whatever you want, just not 'marriage'.

    Kind of ironic though, so many in the gay community think that Albertan's views are bigoted. Isn't that a bigoted view of heterosexuals? Pot, meet kettle?


    Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    Alberta (4.50 / 2) (#180)
    by 0xA on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:00:29 AM EST

    Even if the Supreme Court, and the Federal Government enact this legislation, the province of Alberta will enact a part of our Constitution called the "not withstanding" clause which will make Alberta exempt from this new legislation.

    And once again I am embarassed to be an Albertan. You say that you are not ani-gay, I can respect that. Yours is not the spirit of most people that oppose this in Alberta from what I have seen.

    Civil union, civil co-habitation, spousal contract, M-contract - call it whatever you want, just not 'marriage'.

    I don't understand this, what difference does it make? Please explain your position, I'm really curious.

    [ Parent ]

    Its "holy", of course *g* (3.33 / 3) (#201)
    by megid on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 11:44:01 AM EST

    Really, you wouldnt believe it if you didnt hear it with your own ears. Where holiness is, common sense has nothing to say.

    --
    "think first, write second, speak third."
    [ Parent ]
    'Marriage' is a specific condition. (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Dr Caleb on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:58:45 PM EST

    Some say the word will become diluted if it applies to two people of the same sex. If I use the word 'pot', do you think of something you boil water in, or something you smoke?

    I'd prefer the word 'marriage' to mean 'the relationship between a man and a woman exclusive to all other for the purpose of raising children' or some similar definition. In the scheme of things, I suppose it doesn't matter what same-sex unions are called, just leave the word 'Marriage' alone.

    I don't believe most Albertans are very much different from me. They believe that homosexuals should have the same support and legal rights and benifits as heterosexuals with respect to their spouses. Just give heterosexuals the word 'marriage'. It's ours, leave it alone.

    Some of the resistance to this comes from the religious side of the population. They too have a right to their opinion, and good on 'em for standing up for their beliefs. They have the same right to their opinion as others in this country, without the label 'homophobe'.

    It really bugs me when gay rights activists label people that because of their beliefs. Christianity specifically forbids homosexuality. So they get labelled 'homophobes'. They can't be true to their religion and condone acts specifically forbidden by it. Christianity also specifically forbids killing another human being, but you never see them labelled 'anti-capital punishment' for it.


    Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    What is "holy" about the word marriage? (4.00 / 3) (#214)
    by hatshepsut on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:42:22 PM EST

    I'm serious here, you want to reserve the term "marriage" because it is somehow "holy", and I just can't seem to make that stretch.

    I am married. I was married not quite two years ago. I was not married in a church, nor was I married by a minister. My marriage was legal, binding, and a great source of joy to me and (I would certainly hope!) my husband.

    We weren't married in a church because we aren't religious. If you mean what I think you mean, however, we shouldn't really be "married" because our union isn't "holy" and it wasn't "blessed" by anyone (except, of course, the State). We think of ourselves as married, we introduce one another as spouse (or wife or husband), and we have a marriage. If it looks like a marriage, feels like a marriage, and has all the rights and obligations of a marriage, it probably is a marriage. Language evolves, whether or not you think the word is "holy".

    [ Parent ]

    That's the point. (3.33 / 3) (#223)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:08:22 PM EST

    Our world, our culture, our language and our institutions are undeniably Christian.

    Rejecting Christianity does nothing to change this fact.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    I don't think you'll find many people who agree. (4.50 / 2) (#250)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:57:27 PM EST

    But some will be happy and some will be sad about it.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Everybody agrees. (3.33 / 3) (#261)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:29:50 PM EST

    Remember that your Anime-induced vision of the world doesn't really correspond to what the rest of us call "reality".

    Get a wider circle of friends.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Get a wider circle of friends. (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:56:07 PM EST

    This from someone who claims that "our world" is "undeniably Christian".
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    tkatchev is right, holmes (5.00 / 1) (#310)
    by Battle Troll on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:19:28 PM EST

    Nietzsche would back him up.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    Protection of the minority (4.33 / 3) (#432)
    by losthalo on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 05:55:35 PM EST

    from the tyranny of the majority. Ring a bell? It's what (theoretically) prevents a democratic republic from turning into a wasteland where this week's popular majority wipes out the competition with legislation, and other fun stuff like that.

    I am myself firmly of the belief that Christianity can make its way in the world and sink or swim as fate decrees without its rules being encoded into our laws (and will, in all honesty, probably be better off without the tyrant's crown on its head).

    (Losthalo)

    [ Parent ]
    Read it again. (4.33 / 3) (#278)
    by Dr Caleb on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:31:31 PM EST

    Where did I say 'Marriage' was 'Holy'?

    I said it was a special case. I did not refer the state of being married to anything religious. Quite the opposite. I don't believe the government should regulate marriage, due to the separation of church and state. Religious institutions have their own customs.

    I want the word 'marriage' to legally represent and define a heterosexual union. Nothing more. It does not have to be based on money, religion, politics, social class or anything else. "One man and One woman to the exclusion of all others"...

    Next time read what someone actually writes, instead of adding your own context and making incorrect assumptions.


    Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    Wuv and Mowwage... (4.50 / 2) (#433)
    by losthalo on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 06:04:35 PM EST

    I want the word 'marriage' to legally represent and define a heterosexual union.

    And why is that? Surely there needs to be some reason to code this into law rather than letting society work this out for itself. The answer is, it's easier to just some push legislation through than to change minds en masse. Yes? Easier than supporting the thesis that 'marriage is a union between a man and a woman'.

    (Just for giggles, what of the poor people betwixt and between on the subject of their own gender identity? Can they not marry?)

    (Losthalo)

    Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.

    [ Parent ]
    Rating 1, BS (4.50 / 2) (#100)
    by Fen on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:42:31 PM EST

    I looked it up.  Germany does not give full state marriage.  Most notably absent are tax, welfare, and adoption benefits.  See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1468031.stm .  Half-assed recognition like this is worse than no recognition.
    --Self.
    [ Parent ]
    So what? Then the Netherlands. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by megid on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:49:34 PM EST

    Been there, done that: The Netherlands: [insert same text here]

    The fact that some (formerly christian fundamentalist) western country has already done that is important, not exactly who. I admit to be not perfectly informed -- in this case because my interest in that matter is not very intense.

    --
    "think first, write second, speak third."
    [ Parent ]

    Canada's next PM advocating this (4.42 / 7) (#68)
    by Bryan Larsen on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:49:15 AM EST

    (reposting as topical)

    http://vancouverplus.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20030820/USAMEN?se ction=Legal

    Canada's Paul Martin, who will very likely be Prime Minister in February, has advocated the scheme that you have proposed.  He uses the term "civil union" rather than M-Corp.

    People don't like the idea, because nobody wants marriage to be "watered down".

    I strongly dislike this idea.  For a long time now, atheists and others have been able to be married by a justice of the peace, and receive full social and civil standing by this.

    And most anybody who goes the full distance to form a civil union is going to want to receive all of the social kudos to be gained from being "married".  Forcing these people to do so in a religious institution is discriminatory, I think.

    Bryan


    being married socially (4.33 / 3) (#76)
    by speek on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:54:04 AM EST

    Your married socially as soon as you start telling people you're married. There's no need ever to go to a church or the government.

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    Marriage as a non-legal term (4.50 / 2) (#77)
    by zakalwe on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 09:02:03 AM EST

    And most anybody who goes the full distance to form a civil union is going to want to receive all of the social kudos to be gained from being "married". Forcing these people to do so in a religious institution is discriminatory, I think.
    I think the point is that marriage is fundamentally a religious term thats been bent to fit with legal practicalities. Its far better I think to seperate the religious meaning and the legal meanings out. An atheist who wants to be called "maried" can just proclaim himself so, or go to (or create) some dummy registered religion to do so if they want. Such a proclamation has no legal standing, but the point is that neither does a regular Christian marriage ceremony - marriage is back where it should be - as a purely social term.

    This even solves issues like polygamy - call yourself married to as many as you like, the law only has to care about those civil union licences.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that's a reasonable idea. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 09:44:34 AM EST

    My baby brudder and his shack-mate finally got married last week. A judge did the deed, much to my mother's vast annoyance. Reflecting on this, it occurred to me that from a civil point of view, having a judge certify a "civil union" as being between any two people would certainly satisfy all legal requirements, while reserving marriage as a sacramental term.

    The only problem with this is that, much like the EU GI dispute and the never ending bitching about what "hacker" means, common usage of the word "marriage" has already diluted its meaning and people will strongly resist attempts by religion to reclaim it.


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    -1 Too seppo-centric (1.21 / 19) (#71)
    by I Hate Seppos on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:59:00 AM EST

    So you seppos assrape each other, get married, and then talk about it on Jerry Springer. What's new?

    ____________________
    Are you a retarded water-on-the-brain seppo that doesn't even know what a seppo is?
    Well, here's a hint, fuckface: what rhymes with septic tank?

    help (2.50 / 2) (#396)
    by snitch on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 07:52:16 AM EST

    once your (present or future) son is raped as a child, just as you evidently are, ask him how he's dealing with it. it might help.

    "Against his heart was a thesaurus bound in PVC. He smiled at the entrance guard." - Steve Aylett
    [ Parent ]

    Not necessarily a valid reason . . . (4.00 / 4) (#73)
    by acceleriter on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:03:47 AM EST

    . . . and not that any opponents of same sex marriage are going to admit it, but I suspect that many of those opposed are so for economic reasons.

    Marriage causes an accretion of financial benefits for those participating--particularly with respect to taxes (particularly with elimination of the "marriage penalty") and employer benefits.

    Those benefits cost the government and employers money, but it would look shameful to try to defeat them on those grounds. Perhaps the call for a "defense of marriage" act and amendment to the Constitituion has more to do with economics than with morality.

    the difference between true wisdom (3.18 / 11) (#74)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:41:05 AM EST

    and a reductionist, dangerous, simplistic understanding of the world a teenager embraces, comes from understanding things like this:

    you wage war to win peace

    you abort fetuses to save children

    you allow gay marriage to promote family values

    if your morality and conscience can embrace the deeper complexity of real life and real human nature underneath the surface contradictions in these three statements, then congratulations:

    you have just developed a real, nuanced morality in life, and you are no longer a stupid indignant teenager in your world outlook

    so many of us never develop real morality, and only have cynical teenage-mentality level righteous indignation their entire adult lives, founded in religious fundamentalism or intolerant adherence to other overly simplistic notions about how life really works

    god, or evolution, or whatever... it gave you mind:

    so open it and use it for once, and think


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    Some would say: (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Vesperto on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:26:13 PM EST

    • You use diplomacy and dialogue until all of your options run out, expecting to keep the peace and avoid going into war;
    • you abort fetuses 'cos they'll be born with severe handicaps or 'cos it was an unwanted pregnancy;
    • you allow gay marriages because marriage - at the eyes of the law - is the right for two human beings to bond on economical terms.


    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    [ Parent ]
    Clap clap. (2.66 / 3) (#138)
    by tkatchev on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:10:32 PM EST

    Nice to see that hard-line communism still has a loyal following in the "Western World".

    I can't see why, in God's name, you need this depraved and discredited ideology, though.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    i'm a communist? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:27:10 PM EST

    gee, glad to know

    i'm also glad you know me better than i know myself

    hey brother, what should i wear to work today? you know me so well, i thought i'd ask you

    smooches! thanks for caring my trollish sycophant! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed you are. (2.33 / 3) (#221)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:05:38 PM EST

    Your drivel is prime-cut 100% pure-bred communist rhetoric.

    If you've read as much communist rhetoric as I have, you begin to recognize it with closed eyes.

    (By the putrid zombie-like smell.)


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    this is all very interesting (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:21:21 PM EST

    except that i am not a communist

    capitalism combined with democracy is the best system so far developed by mankind for assembling human beings into happy, productive societies

    for what psychological reason must you feel it necessary to label me a communist?

    is your real name mccarthy or something? is the red scare starting again?

    if you wish to label me something that sheeple feel an instant distaste for, call me a "liberal"

    you'll find it has much more potent witch-hunt inducing properies than the label "communist" nowadays, my historically out-of-touch friend ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    The modern world is a confusing place. (2.33 / 3) (#231)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:47:36 PM EST

    For example, it is quite possible nowadays to be a communist and a free-market capitalist at the same time.

    Just look at Rumsfeld.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    dude (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:12:23 PM EST

    you're out there

    and not in a cool intellecutal way

    you're out there in a tinfoil hat way

    if you think rumsfeld is a communist, you fill me with a warm feeling

    because, as sycophantic troll #34 that likes to follow me around, you only reveal yourself to be out of touch with reality with such patently stupid statements

    it's nice to know that those who oppose me are fundamentally out of touch with reality

    they can't win


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Good argument. (2.33 / 3) (#257)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:24:56 PM EST

    Now, what was the point you were trying to make?

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    my point (5.00 / 1) (#258)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:26:36 PM EST

    i am a troll and you are my fodder lol ;-P

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    That's nice. (2.33 / 3) (#281)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:39:04 PM EST

    Are you feeling aroused?

    'Cause I'm definitely not.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    you have to bend over (5.00 / 1) (#285)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:53:16 PM EST

    we've been over this a thousand times

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow. (2.33 / 3) (#288)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:04:23 PM EST

    You are, like, so alpha-male.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    not really (5.00 / 1) (#293)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:20:09 PM EST

    just alpha-troll

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    BTW. (2.33 / 3) (#222)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:06:32 PM EST

    Go read some Lenin, he was remarkably similar to you in many ways.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    why not trotsky? (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:18:03 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Well. (3.00 / 2) (#232)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:48:29 PM EST

    Trotsky wasn't so trollish.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Are you a bot? (5.00 / 2) (#300)
    by Laconian on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 08:21:13 PM EST

    Because seriously, I swear I've seen all of your posts somewhere.

    You must be a newswire from the Christian Coalition wirefeed or something. Because you have absolutely no diversity of opinion, it's almost as if you have no mind of your own.

    I could probably make a program that could package verbatim GOP party-line BS into a condescending, arrogant sentence syntax, too!

    [ Parent ]

    Haven't I seen this post before somewhere? (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by amarodeeps on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 11:08:21 PM EST

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/9/12/91022/8415/9#9

    But you used it on the same exact subject; I think you should branch out--with just a little modification, it could be used on a war-related story, or an abortion-related piece. It makes me think of a fun game that might be tried: write the most generic post possible while posting it in as many stories and sites with completely different subjects as possible and get the highest mods possible...hmm...has this been done before? I would guess so.

    The post is definitely simplistic too. But, that might work in its favor; people eat that shit up and that will probably help to get it higher ratings on different sites. I'm thinking the whole kind of "I'm more ethically advanced than you" tone would work really well on some Mac rumor sites especially, or a role-playing gamer site. People can really identify with it.

    You fixed the typo at the end; nice.

    Sorry, I know this is completely OT. For the record, I think people should keep their noses out of other people's business and just let the gay folks get married, for Christ's sake.



    [ Parent ]
    circletimessquare's greatest hits! (4.33 / 3) (#207)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:26:08 PM EST

    the topic seems to be brought up ad nauseum, doesn't that bother you more than the fact that i don't care to address the same issue over and over again with a new and different witty riff?

    in my mind, same issue, same reply

    cut and paste

    nothing wrong with that ;-)

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    happiness... (none / 0) (#496)
    by irdum on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 02:38:21 AM EST

    do you know about the 7 chakra's, Great Vehicle, Isaac, Mohammad, conspircys of secret services? It's all in your mind, so use it for once and think. Eternal happiness is not a dream. downloading secretinobtaininginnerpeace.bat exe secretinobtaininginnerpeace <done>
    It takes a crisis to bring about a change in attitudes.
    [ Parent ]
    the 91st solution (4.00 / 5) (#80)
    by F a l c o n on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 10:07:20 AM EST

    Sorry, but this article is neither the first proposed solution, nor even the first place for this specific solution.

    As you yourself point out in part, it wouldn't make any of the contending sides happy. Notch another one up for the "lose-lose" idea, which is rapidly replacing the 90s "win-win" concept.

    Sorry, -1 for the "I have the solution" approach. You do a good job enumerating the points, though. That part could almost stand on its own.

    --
    Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster

    happiness? (5.00 / 1) (#298)
    by imadork on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:56:37 PM EST

    As you yourself point out in part, it wouldn't make any of the contending sides happy.

    Do you really think we'll come to a solution that makes both sides happy? A true compromise is a solution that neither side is happy about, but both get some benefit out of and endorse anyway...

    Approximately 50% of us are below average..
    [ Parent ]

    wrong (none / 0) (#452)
    by F a l c o n on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 03:44:11 AM EST

    Nope, a true compromise is one that makes both sides happy, or at least satisfied.

    Everything else is a weak compromise at best, and more likely a 3rd party selling you their wish as a "compromise".

    There's an old saying in Germany "Wenn zwei sich streiten freut sich der Dritte" (rough translation: If two fight, the third one rejoices)

    --
    Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
    [ Parent ]

    IS there an issue? (4.00 / 9) (#81)
    by SanSeveroPrince on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 10:53:48 AM EST

    I could never see the issue on either part.

    Gay people want to be legally married. That is no problem. It's a union of two people who are going to share their lives together. They will pay taxes as a registered couple, get a mortgage, automatically be recognized as beneficiary in case of death without last will. They will (if they so choose) adopt childern, make out in the subway and be arrested for fellatio in the back yeard of their suburban home like all married couples in the world. Together is together, and married is married, regardless of your sex.
    If you see a problem with this, I think you have issues that may require therapy.

    The Catholic church does not want gay marriages in their churches. This is no problem either. It's their faith, their private club whose rules are determined on their whims. And an old book whose translation is not quite solid. That book states clearly that if you're male and you like it up the butt, you will go to hell and that you DEFINITELY cannot get married in church. It may not be the most rational belief for a gay person, but any Christian who believes in the Bible CANNOT back away from this. It's your Lord Jesus' decision.
    If you see a problem with this, I think you have issues that may require therapy.

    The reality of the fact is that same sex relations have been the butt of discrimination and hate mongering for centuries now. Funny, if you consider that it used to be the Thing To Do (tm) in ancient times.
    This still does not change those facts as I see them. They still remain pure and clear in my mind. It's a shame that people love shit slinging so much, and that people of limited vision cloud the issue so much.

    ----

    Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


    Typo (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Pluto on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 12:18:51 PM EST

    ....if you're male and you like it up the butt, you will go to hell and that you DEFINITELY cannot get married in church.

    I believe that's supposed to read:

    ....if you're male and you like it up the butt, you DEFINITELY cannot get married in church, but you can become a priest.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    Er... come again? (3.75 / 4) (#96)
    by Vesperto on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:30:46 PM EST

    ...and be arrested for fellatio in the back yeard of their suburban home like all married couples in the world. - no. This might be so in the so-called land of freedom (and if you think a bit you'll realise those laws exist because of homophobia) but in the majority of the so-called civilized world what you do inside your house (at least in terms of sex) is your own damn business. Period.

    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    [ Parent ]
    Yes, you wish (4.00 / 4) (#109)
    by SanSeveroPrince on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:13:20 PM EST

    Ahem. Perhaps my typo got to you:

    back yeard = back yard = NOT INSIDE YOUR HOME

    ----

    Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


    [ Parent ]
    Really? (3.66 / 3) (#112)
    by Vesperto on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:20:08 PM EST

    Strange laws, isn't your back yard your property? If you have a fence and your neighbour gets a bench to peer over can s/he still call Sue? Eitherway, oral sex is illegal is most US-states, be it outside in public (that's everywhere) or in your own house.

    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    [ Parent ]
    Not any more, my friend! (3.66 / 3) (#157)
    by PylonHead on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:55:14 PM EST

    oral sex is illegal is most US-states, be it outside in public (that's everywhere) or in your own house.

    http://www.sodomylaws.org/

    Get out your knee pads, and let's get humming!

    [ Parent ]

    Neat, congrats. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Vesperto on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 09:29:43 PM EST

    It's about time. But, er... i dind't look much at the site, but oral sex and sodomy are two different things. i assume they were both 'cleaned'.

    Eitherway, you buy your kneepads if you want, i'll buy KY instead.

    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    [ Parent ]

    Was and always has been (5.00 / 1) (#415)
    by Squeegee on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:55:07 PM EST

    ...but oral sex and sodomy are two different things. i assume they were both 'cleaned'.

    Nope, oral sex is considered an act of sodomy, be it between heterosexuals or homosexuals. The classical definition of sodomy was any sexual contact that wasn't sanctioned by the church is sodomy.

    [ Parent ]
    you missed the biggest issue (3.90 / 10) (#82)
    by zzzeek on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 12:12:07 PM EST

    which is conservatives dont want gay couples adopting/having (via surrogates/sperm donors)/raising kids. If they can legally conjoin that goes a long way towards legal/social acceptance of such.

    Ignorance.. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by StephenThompson on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:13:15 PM EST

    Gay couples can already adopt kids 'married' or not. Very common in my state in fact.

    [ Parent ]
    Not in florida (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Wain on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:30:18 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Who says marriage is a religious term? (4.78 / 19) (#87)
    by NoBeardPete on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 01:12:01 PM EST

    A lot of people have been claiming that marriage is a religious term. I disagree.

    Every tribe or group of people has the concept of marriage. Like the prarie vole, albatros, swallow, and baboon, mankind is innately inclined to form long term pair bonds. This is not to deny that couples will cheat on each other, that couples will sometimes split up, or that some societies practice polygamy to greater or lesser extents, but is a statement of the overwhelming pattern of human relationships. Every society recognizes these pairs. When people translate from any given language to or from English, they will associate the word "marriage" with whatever word is used in the other language to describe a long term pair bond between two people.

    Established religions tend to take on the role of recognizing and blessing events that occur in their societies. Many religions have coming of age ceremonies, officially recognizing the point at while a child becomes an adult. No one claims that coming of age is a religious affair, though. No one doubts that a child will grow into an adult without religious confirmation of adulthood. Likewise, many religions have adopted the role of recognizing the point at which two independent people become a married couple. As with coming of age, this is largely symbolic. As with coming of age, this draws a firm line between to states that, in actuality, blend into each other. Having an official observance of this boundry has a real effect, though, because the two states in question (child vs. adult, independent people vs. married couple) exist as a matter of social fact.

    It is true, then, that many religions have taken on the role of officially recognizing marriage. This does not mean the marriage is an inherently religious business. Here's what it does mean. Religion is perfectly capable of stepping in and providing services as an arbiter or who is and is not married. While the reality is that there is a smooth continuum between independent people and a married couple, people desire to cleanly distinguish married from unmarried couples, so they will tend to seek an officiator to pronounce couples as married. Although religion has taken on this role, it is not the only possible organization that can take it,

    When two people have formed a long term pair bond, it is useful for the law to recognize this fact. This is true for many reasons. The law recognizes property rights, and in the case of a commited couple, property is typically held in common. The law recognizes parental rights, and commited couples typically share between them whatever parental rights one might have. The law recognizes the right of some people to make medical and legal decisions for others, as couples often do for each other. As I have said before, the reality is that there is a smooth continuum between two uninvolved people and a married couple. For all of the reasons I have just mentioned, though, it is important for the law to recognize the fact that any given couple is married. If they are, in fact, committed to living with each other in an exclusive relationship, keeping a household and property in common, trusting each other to make medical and legal decisions for each other, raise children together, it only makes sense for the law to recognize this. There is not much of a point in having the law bury its head in the sand and ignore the facts.

    Part of the genius of the American legal system is that it understands that many social facts exist independently of the law, and that it is proper for the law to recognize these facts, not try to deny them. I think it would be both just and wise for the government to recognize gay marriage, rather than to try to deny it.


    Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!

    No so. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Entendre Entendre on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:09:49 PM EST

    Every tribe or group of people has the concept of marriage. Like the prarie vole, albatros, swallow, and baboon, mankind is innately inclined to form long term pair bonds.

    Research this. You'll be surprised.

    --
    Reduce firearm violence: aim carefully.
    [ Parent ]

    I have (4.50 / 2) (#90)
    by NoBeardPete on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:28:49 PM EST

    There's a lot of independent evidence suggesting that humans evolved to be basically monogamous, with a fair amount of cheating, and occasional polygamy. Evidence includes the ratio of testicle size to body mass in male humans, and the male preference for young females. It's pretty significant that just about every society we've found has a concept of long term pairing, and romantic love. I also think it's significant that free-love communes and other free-love oriented groups usually fall apart in a mass of jealousy, and they usually do so pretty quickly.

    Perhaps you could mention some of the evidence that you think points away from human monogamy.


    Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
    [ Parent ]

    Everywhere where males have... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by the on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:06:06 PM EST

    ...an opportunity to procure multiple female partners they attempt to do so. As the ratio of males to females is 1:1, those societies that allow men to do this can end up being divided between the haves and the have-nots. That is why those societies with the greatest imbalance in number of partners per male are also those with the greatest imbalance of power: you need to be able to fight off those other males. In Western societies we don't have a 1:1 ratio because that's what the males want, instead it reflects an egalitarian trend in Western culture where we sacrifice the freedom of males for the greater good: a society with less sexual tension and unrest.

    Given that we have a society in which it is legally unacceptable to have more than one wife men can play a little game. They can help to secure female partners by promising to them "you are the only one for me". Women are regularly duped by this line but the men have nothing to lose by using it. This all helps to add to the illusion that the 1:1 ratio reflects male desires.

    --
    The Definite Article
    [ Parent ]

    Very true (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by NoBeardPete on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:31:26 PM EST

    It is very true that males will generally try to procure multiple female partners, if they think they can. However, if a non-human biologist was studying humans, I think they would classify them as monogamous, along with other monogamous creatures.

    Where there is a great power imbalance, top males are often able to monopolize access to significant fractions of the female population. The Incan Empire, and the certain Chinese emperors practiced extreme forms of this, with significant fractions of the female population being dedicated to a very select few males. However, this is largely a historical anomaly.

    The enviornment people have evolved to deal with is basically that of a small hunter-gatherer tribe. Such tribes are generally fairly egalitarian. It is typical for the top male to perhaps have two or three wives, and all other relationships to be monogamous.

    In most of the world, monogamous relationships are the norm. It is certainly true that at points in the past, in some societies, polygamy has been practiced to a large degree. However, taking a broad view of human history, I think monogamy overwhelmingly emerges as the typical case. I think it's fair to say that human psychology and physiology are designed for a generally monogamous society, with occasional cheating and occasional polygamy.


    Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
    [ Parent ]

    Conceptual Issue (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Zulq on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:57:01 PM EST

    I believe the author is saying that the common understanding of marriage is a "long term pair bond" in the eyes of both state and god and is suggesting to seperate the two conceptually.

    By turning them into two seperate independant concepts it is possible to have one without the other.

    In this scenario, while doing little to improve the acceptance of the gay community, both sides of the dispute benefit.

    I agree with this but I feel to just rename one of these concepts would have little or no impact for a number of generations.

    Z x.
    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by NoBeardPete on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:10:29 PM EST

    The author suggests that marriage as a religious affair and marriage as a legal affair be separated. This is fine by me. What the author of this piece, and many other people besides, has claimed is that the word "marriage" should go with the religious side of it, because "marriage" is a religious affair. The author suggests that the legal side of the coin should find a different word, because the author believes that "marriage" is fundamentally religious.

    I disagree that marriage is religious. For a long time, in many places, religion has taken on the role of recognizing marriages. Marriages exist as a matter of social fact. A marriage exists because the couple involved believes it exists, and because the community they are in believe it exists. For a long time, it has been primarily religion that recognizes this, drafts up a piece of paper stating that it is true, and performs a ceremony to commemorate the new status. But to claim that marriage is religious is to put the cart before the horse.

    I say we call things as they actually are. If I see a gay couple who is committed to each other, lives together, walks the dog together, draws up a family budget together, looks into adopting kids together, loves each other, has gay sex together, and has plans to remain in this state for the indefinite future, I say they are married. It is perverse to say anything else. I think it's only right that the law officially recognizes the fact of the matter - this couple is married.


    Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
    [ Parent ]

    lets boil this down to what it really is (4.00 / 2) (#115)
    by millman on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:29:44 PM EST

    It's a control issue.  Nothing more.  Your logic makes sense to me, but it doesn't to the fundamentalists.  You can't make them shut up and agree with your position by touting your logic that is obvious to everyone but them.  You're missing the fact that not everyone thinks the way you do.  If they did, there would be no need for any of this discussion.

    The author states that "religion is the root of marraige" but focusing on that misses why he drew up this proposal.  Since fundamentalists beleive that marraige is religious in nature and will not waver on that point, he has proposed this COMPRIMISE that lets these parties with irreconcilable differences both get something they want, even though it doesn't work out perfectly for either.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a world full of thieves, the only crime is getting caught.
    [ Parent ]

    Good Point (4.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Zulq on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:32:35 PM EST

    I think calling things as they are is the right thing to do but it wont get religious bodies to shut up.

    I don't really care if such religious bodies are upset about a broader state definition of marriage. I gather, however, some people are.

    The authors solution pleases the most people and gets the job "done", i.e. a more representative solution.

    Z x.
    [ Parent ]

    Semantics (4.50 / 4) (#165)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 11:18:33 PM EST

    Really you are dealing with an issue of semantics.
    If I hand you a thin, tasteless waffer you might say I've just given you a snack (a poor one at that). If a guy with a white collar does the same thing... then it's called a "communion" and takes on all sorts of special symbolic meaning.

    Likewise, the word "marriage" has different special symbolic meanings depending upon who you talk to.

    I think what the author is suggesting is to give the legal contract between couples (i.e. what the Law recognizes) a language neutral term that doesn't carry the same loaded symbolism that the word "marriage" does. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me (granted, I'm a married heterosexual male).

    This doesn't mean that people couldn't still be "married"....just that such status would be a seperate religous/social ceremony that was not tied to the official legal contract. Thus person A could point to a gay couple and say that they were "married" and person B could point to that same couple and say that they were not.... and both would be correct according to thier own definition of the term.... which is the whole point.

    Frankly, the whole concept of gay "marriage" creeps me out more then a little bit (then again so does liverwurst), nevertheless I believe that gay people should have the same protections and rights as everyone else. I can assure you that having the governments seal of approval on gay marriages isn't going to make them creep me out any less...just as it would not make liverwurst seem anymore palatable.

    I can agree with gay people getting equal legal protections. I can't agree with them trying to force some sort of social acceptance through legislation (which is what I think alot of them want). A person has a right to force some-one to refrain from hitting them with a stick... no-one has an inherent right to force some-one else to "accept" them.

    [ Parent ]

    100% agreement factor. (5.00 / 2) (#279)
    by Dr Caleb on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:58:18 PM EST

    Except I like Liverwurst. But not the coarse stuff.

    Does that creep you out? :-)


    Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    Actuallly... (5.00 / 2) (#422)
    by DavidTC on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 03:24:11 PM EST

    ...I don't have any problem with marriage going with religions. I mean, if it's religious, anyone can just randomly say they're married...and maybe they are, in the eyes of their God, whoever that is. (Talk about making marriage meaningless.)

    The problem I have is that author is trying to keep the term marriage to refer a legal condition, but only of people of differing sex, and calling it a 'civl union' otherwise, which has all the rights and priviledges, but not the name, which is just blatantly hypocritical. It's quite literally 'seperate but equal', using two terms to refer to one concept, one the term dating back thousands of years for the 'acceptable' people, and one a brand new term for the 'unacceptable' people.

    It's like a civil rights law saying 'The rights of people shall not be infringed upon because they are subhuman mud-people.'. Gay people could do something we've always called marriage, but suddenly for them we're going to call it something else, because they aren't acceptable enough.

    I say, let's let the government recognize 'civil unions' or whatever it wants to call them, and let everyone else, as we apparently cannot agree on the word 'marriage', have it to do with as we please. You can go to chuch and get marrried, you can jump over a sword and get married, you can just declare yourself married.

    This, of course, isn't what the churches want at all, but fuck them. They're trying to manipulate the term marriage, so let's just let them win the battle and let anyone use it to mean anything they want.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Fundamentalists use the same argument (4.50 / 2) (#104)
    by millman on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:03:14 PM EST

    to claim that marraige is derived from religion. Since monogomous relationships are the human norm, not something we created, they are biological in origin and therefore mandated by god, since god created all life. You are counting on the fundmanetalists to use the same logic as you, which will not happen.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a world full of thieves, the only crime is getting caught.
    [ Parent ]

    I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Sqeegee on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:52:31 PM EST

    I doubt that they honestly believe that things of bilogical origin are mandated by God in some way. If that were the case they would have to accept that same sex unions or even "homosexual" activities conducted by animals in the wild are natural and madated by God. This doesn't seem to fit with their world-view.

    [ Parent ]
    the way around that one (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by millman on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 05:02:33 PM EST

    is to either ignore it, or use the claim that humans are very different than animals.  Again, normal terms of logic don't apply.  There are better arguments against gay marriage (none of which I buy), but I think this whole article was derived as a comprimise between the gay rights activists and fundamentalists.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a world full of thieves, the only crime is getting caught.
    [ Parent ]

    Cultures (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by epepke on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:43:31 AM EST

    For the cultures ennumerated in the Human Relations Area Files, polygyny is the most common pattern, followed by monogamy, followed by polyandry, followed by group marriage.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    Where can I look at this? (3.50 / 2) (#206)
    by NoBeardPete on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:14:40 PM EST

    Where can I find these Human Relations Area Files? They sound interesting. Not having seen them, I'm going to guess that they classify a society as polygymous if polygymy is practiced even slightly. I would imagine that in most of the "polygymous" societies they list, the majority of relationships are monogamous relationships, with only a few rich and powerful men able to take many wives.


    Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
    [ Parent ]

    Is there a division? (4.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Vesperto on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:38:36 PM EST

    In the US (since that's the part of the world this article is talking about), is there a division between marriage at a church (or whatever temple) and legal marriage?

    The way i see it, the religious lobbies are, as usual, trying to get theis beliefs passed on as law, 'cos it's moraly correct. Bullshit, law should have nothing to do with morals and it should certainly have nothing to do with religion.
    The gay-activists, at least the fanatics, are wanting to get married in chirches, which is plain stupid.

    Assuming that separation does exist, then gay-activists should be fighting to be able to get legaly married - meaning, they can live toghether under a shared economy system (or whatever the fancy wording is). I think most people start yelling Oh Jesus 'cos of the word marriage and they might be right, in a way, because throughout history that word assumed the meaning of Man unites with Woman. This is not limited to the chatolic religon.

    So why not call it Union? I mean, that's what it is: two (wo)men live toghether, share the house, probably the car, the expenses and just about everything in their lives. Whether they love each other or not is irrelevant. these couples should be able to have a special (eww this word will get someone jumping) status, a union-status.

    As for adopting, if you think of world population (growing), why not?

    If you disagree post, don't moderate.

    Forget it - how about marry and let marry? (4.59 / 22) (#103)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:56:13 PM EST

    As a Christian, I should have the right to consider two men cohabitating as not being married, regardless of what the state may say.

    As a Christian, or a citizen or a 8-armed purple beast from Mars you have the right to consider anything in whatever light you want to. You don't necessarily have the right to dictate to the rest of us or the government that your consideration should prevail.

    The problem is that those who wish to give same sex unions the same name as traditional unions are not only seeking economic equality but social acceptance and they are doing it through legal and political means.

    No, they're seeking the same economic and legal status that heterosexuals enjoy.

    Your solution is awful - you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and rename him a bastard, quite literally. My solution is quite simply and elegant - we recognize that two men and two women can get married and be legally recognized as such. Those who disapprove can cluck scornfully to themselves and mind their own fucking business.

    The only reason a gay marriage would be a slap in the face for you is if your head was too big and in other people's business too much. They're responsible for the state of their marriages and souls and you're responsible for yours. Got it?

    I'm a married heterosexual - and guess what? It's really easy to let Steve and Bob, and Alice and Rhonda get married - it doesn't hurt me a bit. See how that works?

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    WTF? (1.80 / 10) (#111)
    by djaynewman on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:17:31 PM EST

    > As a Christian, I should have the right to consider two men cohabitating as not being married, regardless of what the state may say. And I would be right. Yes, you are allowed, in the privacy of your own head, to consider pretty much anything you want to. However, it is thinking like your's that caused my mother to spend my birthday crying and cleaning the swaztikas off our front door when I was three. You see, I was the product of a "mixed" marriage: my father was Jewish and my mother was one of *your* people. So some of those people who didn't consider my parent's union to be a real marriage got together and committed vandalism. And so I consider you even more of a bigot, because you are actually publishing your bile and trying to hide behind the bible. The US has a long history of separation of church and state. Marriage is one of the few places where the Christians have held out. Hopefully this will not last much longer. I also don't see any reason why *other* people marrying hurt *you*. Religiously, it should be just as bad to see two people of other religions be allowed to marry. In addition, society has a vested interest in stable households. If nothing else, becuase stable households tend to produce more tax money. It shouldn't matter if the household contains one man and one woman, or some other number of each. Why is the government even *in* the marriage business? The government should create the legal bindings and obligations, and the couple/group/whatever should go to their church (if they wish) for an optional wedding. That way your marriage can remain "untainted" by any "false" marriages if you belong to a church that narrowly defines marriage. That's *your* choice. BTW: I, also, and a happily married heterosexual, but it shouldn't matter if I wan't.
    <pre> -- D. Jay Newman Gadgeteer at Large
    [ Parent ]
    How about marry and be merry? (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#395)
    by mami on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 06:00:49 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Pulleease (3.80 / 5) (#110)
    by Pluto on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:16:56 PM EST

    I will donate $20 to the K5 Trust Fund, if I don't hear one more word about testicle size, sperm over-production, or monogamy as it relates to marriage.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    I feel I must tell you (4.75 / 4) (#153)
    by crazycanuck on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:38:29 PM EST

    that due to christian-imposed monogamy my testicles are now the size of grapefruits and the sperm over-production must be released daily through religious viewings of Natalie Portman pictures.

    [ Parent ]
    same sex marriages (3.63 / 11) (#113)
    by crazycanuck on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:22:19 PM EST

    are gay

    True (3.00 / 2) (#159)
    by SQFreak on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 09:24:30 PM EST

    Yes, they are, in that same-sex marriages are between two gay people.

    [ Parent ]
    could it be gay in any other way? :) n/t (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by crazycanuck on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 09:42:59 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    I have no problem with Civil unions (4.62 / 8) (#116)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:29:54 PM EST

    in fact, anyone should be able to get them.

    why should Atheists have to subject themselfs to marriage?

    The real objection is... (2.68 / 16) (#120)
    by trimethyl on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:51:09 PM EST

    "marriage" is simply a contract

    Which is exactly the problem with marriage today. It has lost its meaning as a God-ordained, inseparable union of a man and woman, and has been reduced to "contractual" status.

    Here's a clue: any union in which people treat each other as "contractual obligations" is destined for failure. The "gay family" - if there ever was such a thing, is a living farce of real marriage. Homosexual intercourse can never result in children, and there is never the opportunity for the bonds between husband and wife and child to form.

    Marriage, as defined the most popular Christian religion, is not simply a "union", but rather a God-ordained joining of a man and woman for both procreation and the betterment of the spouses.

    Being "married" to someone of the same sex automatically precludes natural children. And being involved in a homosexual relationship precludes the betterment of the person - rather than learning to love more deeply, the homosexual learns to lust more intensely. Marriage is not merely formalized sexual recreation. It is a sacrifice undertaken by both parties in the service of God - this is why it should be recognized by the state, not simply because two people are now formally having sex. Homosexuals never marry as an act of servanthood to God, but heterosexuals do frequently. (though perhaps not as often as they should...) Two homosexuals who get married do not contribute to the social well-being and stability of their communities.



    what about non-christians (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by crazycanuck on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:58:54 PM EST

    should marriage be forbidden to them?

    what about people that don't want to have children, or who can't have them?

    and why does it bother you if homosexuals marry? how exactly does it change the commitment between you and your opposite-sex partner?
    are you so insecure in your feelings/commitment to your partner that you need words/laws to define your relationship?

    [ Parent ]

    Why do you need marriage? (2.12 / 8) (#137)
    by tkatchev on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:07:25 PM EST

    As an atheist, why do you need the Christian concept of marriage in the first place? (Putting aside the tax benefits and whatnot; things like that are not related to the discussion.)

    I see only two options here:

    a) You feel that there is something in your life and in your worldview that can only be filled by Christianity;

    b) You want to "defile" the lifestyle of the Christians around you, forcefully thrusting your own prejudices onto other people.

    Please explain.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    marriage is not a uniquely Christian concept (n/t) (4.20 / 5) (#141)
    by celeriac on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:20:17 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    If that is so... (1.50 / 8) (#146)
    by tkatchev on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:39:11 PM EST

    ...what's stopping you from calling it a "social contract"?

    Why do you feel you need to hijack a Christian concept?

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    I think it's obvious (5.00 / 8) (#152)
    by crazycanuck on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:35:08 PM EST

    you've uncovered a vast right wing communist free mason illuminati gay atheist conspiracy to destroy good wholesome christian values like marriage, family and the union of priests and altar boys.

    [ Parent ]
    Uncovered? (2.33 / 3) (#186)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:54:48 AM EST

    Uncovered?

    It was never a secret. (At least since Voltaire's time.)


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Dunno, why did Christians (4.66 / 6) (#156)
    by celeriac on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:50:06 PM EST

    feel the need to 'hijack' the Roman concept of marriage or 'maritus', which was in fact much closer to what you are calling 'social contract?'

    [ Parent ]
    Good point. (3.00 / 4) (#187)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:55:32 AM EST

    But the Christians never made it a secret that they wanted to destroy pagan Roman society and the pagan way of life.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Christianity is not the only religion in the world (5.00 / 6) (#179)
    by mcc on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:43:13 AM EST

    You do not live in a vacuum consisting of Christianity, Atheism, and nothing else. There are a number of other alternatives. Almost all currently active religions in the world have some form of mairrage concept which they honor. A number-- not a large number, but a number-- of these do not distinguish between same-sex and heterosex partnerings when performing mairrage rites, in ceremony or in terms of the spiritual/religious meaning of the mairrage itself.

    One simple example with a name you've possibly heard before would be Wicca. Very few Wiccan religious groups have any qualms whatsoever about homosexuality. I know a number of Wiccan or Wiccan-ish-pagan priest/priestess type people who are respected within the community, some of which have some sort of clergy-style certification within the Wiccan religion, who will happily perform mairrages and have the ability (thanks to the Church of Life) to make them legally binding. All of the people of this sort I could name will do this either in a uniquely wiccan/pagan way, or in a generically spiritual way, happily. And none of them care in any case about the gender pairings of the married couple. The only difference is that if the couple is same-sex, this religious mairrage will not have legal status because well, state law says it can't.

    And if you don't believe Wiccans actually exist, well, you will likely have a similar experience with the Unitarians.

    It's not like mairrage is something you have a trademark on. Also, the fact that your religion has a concept that other religions also have does NOT mean that your religion invented the concept, your religion owns the concept, or that members of other religions want to be Christian becuase they happen to share the concept with Christianity. Why do some Christians feel the need to hijack a human concept and pretend it's somehow "theirs"?

    ---
    Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
    [ Parent ]

    You're a clown. (1.66 / 6) (#188)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:56:09 AM EST

    I stopped reading after I saw the word "Wicca".

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    However - (5.00 / 1) (#317)
    by jotter on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 10:32:31 PM EST

    Wicca was probably a poor example to choose, due to its questionable origins. Or lack thereof. A better example would be Judaism. Are you saying that when two Jews get married, they're following a strictly Christian tradition?

    [ Parent ]
    No. (1.00 / 2) (#458)
    by tkatchev on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 07:49:53 PM EST

    They're definitely not following the "Western" tradition, though.

    I thought 1000 years of anti-semitism already made this point very clear, no?


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    four serious answers (none / 0) (#467)
    by Battle Troll on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 03:47:33 PM EST

    1) Jews are only Westerners if they're assimilated and American (or European.) Have you even met a Yemeni or Indian Jew?

    2) Judaism in the West has been completely remade in the image of Christianity.

    3) As tkatchev said, anti-semitism proves you wrong.

    4) Although Christian marriage and Jewish marriage are organically related, the best way to put it is that early Christians developed an idea of marriage that was partly Roman, partly Jewish, and partly original. Then, more than a thousand years later, assimilated Jewish concepts of marriage started to move toward Christian ones.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    let's keep the discussion to the USA (2.66 / 3) (#215)
    by Battle Troll on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:50:31 PM EST

    There are Christian marriages, Jewish marriages, Muslim and Hindu marriages, Buddhist marriages and even secular marriages. But Wiccan marriages are such a small fraction that they're much less worth considering than, for instance, Elvis marriages or nudist marriages.

    Your 'generic spirituality' is a dead giveaway, by the way - that's like saying 'generic rationalism' or 'generic communism.'

    As for the Unitarians, I've been to a number of Unitarian services and, correct me if I'm wrong, they are a church in name only. Maybe that's enough for you, but to me that's like being a 'high school in name only' and teaching creation science.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    Marriage is religious, not christian. (4.25 / 4) (#143)
    by Wain on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:28:09 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Not Christian (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by /dev/niall on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:13:06 PM EST

    It's not a Christian concept, no matter how many times you squeeze your eyes shut and pray to Jeebus that it was.

    You want to "defile" the lifestyle of the Christians around you

    As fun as that sounds, believe it or not there are folks out there who don't believe what you do, but have no problem whatsoever letting you go on doing what you're doing as long as you keep to yourself. Who the hell am I to tell you you're wrong? And who the hell are you to tell me that marriage is a uniquely Christian concept. It wasn't even a friggen' sacrament until the 13th century or so.
    --
    "compared to the other apes, my genitals are gigantic" -- TheophileEscargot
    [ Parent ]

    And this is why there's a need to separate the two (5.00 / 7) (#127)
    by GhostfacedFiddlah on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 05:32:45 PM EST

    You may think that you just stated the definition of marriage, but you didn't. You stated your own definition of marriage. If I'm an atheist, I'm not getting married "under god", even though I may love and grow with my partner (yes, female in this case) as much as any christian marriage performed "under god".

    This is exactly what the article was talking about - the concepts of "marriage" and "civil union" should be divorced (pun not intended). Marriage can be whatever people want it to be, but a "civil union" will have a definite meaning, and confer definite benefits on the couple.

    If you want a spiritual bond with your partner, then you can. If you don't believe that a gay couple can have that spiritual bond, you're entitled to your opinion - but it should have no effect on the benefits two people who obviously care for each other should have.

    In effect - call it what you want. "Marriage" in today's world doesn't have any meaning you should be proud of. It's used as a gimmick in reality shows, and the church by no means has a monopoly on the word. If two gay voodoo wikka pandas are "married" in a Satanist church by a transvestite cannibal, then it's still a "marriage" to anyone who recognizes it. If you want a word of your own, call it "sacremental marriage", or something similar.

    [ Parent ]

    The gag is... (5.00 / 2) (#421)
    by DavidTC on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 03:09:21 PM EST

    ...once you seperate marriage and civil union, there will be places holding gay marriages, be they churches, or just Elvis-run chapels in Vegas.

    That's what really scares the churches, and why we're gotten this inane response from them.The logical solution is to completely seperate the concepts, but once you do that, marriage has no legal meaning, so any offical-looking person can marry people.

    Hell, you might even end up with delibrate temporary marriages to people you're just dating. That scares the piss out of churches, because how can they condemn it without saying 'No, marriages by X are invalid, only marriages by Y are valid.', where Y happens to include them and other churches who think the same way. This obviously looks rather self-serving.

    They want all marriages to be a long and complicated process. If you split marriages and civil unions, then the civil unions become the hard-to-do-and-undo thing, and you can get married by simply jumping over your sword, and unmarried by doing it backwards.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    You hit one nail on the head. Bravo, David! (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#439)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 11:25:24 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    And that's O.K. because... (5.00 / 1) (#442)
    by esrever on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 04:24:36 AM EST

    ...the potential for harm in your nightmare scenario to the greater society or the individuals in question is just None Of Our Business, right?
    Nice one.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    No reason (4.25 / 4) (#128)
    by itsbruce on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:36:27 PM EST

    Two homosexuals who get married do not contribute to the social well-being and stability of their communities.

    By what logic? Why not offer a little reasoning for this piece of bigotry? You know, I don't think bigots like you contribute to the social well-being of anything.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    Some reasons: (2.25 / 4) (#246)
    by trimethyl on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:34:20 PM EST

    Recent studies have shown that the "average" homosexual has 318 sexual partners in a lifetime. Some claim as many as 30,000. This is anything but stable.

    But even supposing that two do commit to monogamy, and lead a monagamous lifestyle, there are still problems:

    • Every child has a right to have a father and mother. A homosexual union denies "their" children this right. Even worse, a homosexual union denies the child the right to be raised by his or her biological parents.
    • As the future of this country depends upon today's children, those raising children properly* make a significantly greater contribution to society than childless couples.
    • The homosexual act explicitly denies bringing about new life into the world - it is a dead and selfish act. Even though both parties may enjoy it, it can never be an act of self-giving and acceptance, for the possibility of having to care for the partner's child is denied.
    • A union defined by mutual selfishness is very unlikely to reach out beyond the confines of the home and make positive contributions to the rest of society. Should the homosexual couple remain childless, they fail to contribute to the future; should they raise another's child, they do violence to the child. Either way, their contribution to society is break-even, or a net loss.

    In short: a homosexual union cannot bring about positive changes in the community as a result of that union. At best, a civil union between homosexuals is damage control; at worst, it brings hatred and violence into the community. And it is never marriage, for the fundamental aspects of marriage - selfless love, openness to natural fertility, and being God-ordained cannot be satisfied by such a union.

    * - A child with both a father and mother learns the intangible lessons about life which are not taught in school. A child raised without one or the other, or either, will have to learn lessons typically learned at home from society at large - a process which is usually more painful and socially damaging.
    ** - Childless couples can still contribute to society, however their marital status is not directly related to their ability to contribute - hence, it becomes irrelevant.



    [ Parent ]
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:24:30 PM EST

    The points you make that aren't false or arbitrary are not specific to homosexuals.

    A child does NOT have a RIGHT to a mother and a father. If they did, one would be provided by the state in the case of single parent families.

    Your arbitrary definition of raising children properly negates your second bullet.

    "The homosexual act" is irrelevant to marriage. Gay couples may or may not have children. The same is true of straight couples. The vast majority of sexual acts do not result in children, but marriage is not affected. I'll award you "internal consistency" points if you hold Catholic-style beliefs on birth control, but don't try to ascribe those beliefs to the state, or to society.

    Your fourth point is sheer idiocy. You already know that straight couples may not have children, but your next sentence is worthless. Adopting a child is not in any sense violence to the child. Only a desperate attempt to justify prejudices would lead you to try to claim that.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Anyone can make up statistics... (5.00 / 1) (#299)
    by Laconian on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 08:07:08 PM EST

    ...85% of people know THAT!

    If you are measuring the "worth" of a relationship by the potential number of children that can be cranked out, you have a twisted view on what makes a valid, loving marriage. There are many unwanted children that are born and are either aborted or placed in adoption. Does this make their marriage more worthy of being deemed "successful"? To the contrary, I believe that these couples are the worst of all, because they are creating life and destroying it all in one big ignorant stroke. Successful marriages and relationships are ones that promote life and love for themselves and their children. The fact that they can or cannot bear children is wholly irrelevant. There are many unwanted children out there just dying to be adopted, and the more of them that are taken into a family and cared for, the better. At least it helps clean up the mess that Couple A made.

    [ Parent ]

    Balderdash (5.00 / 1) (#318)
    by jotter on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 10:37:57 PM EST

    First off, those statistics are ridiculous in the extreme. Any gay man who's slept with over three hundred separate partners is working very, very hard at it. When it comes right down to it, homosexuals aren't any more promiscuous than straights, and there's a hell of a lot more straights out there making the rounds. Secondly, your bullet points aren't very well thought out, because they hardly argue that gay men are poor parental models. Your points could be just as easily applied to a single-parent household in which the solo dad satisfies himself by masturbating. There's no female partner present and his urges are satisfied in a purely 'selfish' manner. Is he a bad parent committing his kids to a poor upbringing?

    [ Parent ]
    first post in 4 months (none / 0) (#445)
    by Hana Yori Dango on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 03:45:23 PM EST

    YHBT YHL HAND

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (3.50 / 4) (#131)
    by bugmaster on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:44:34 PM EST

    Believe it or not, I actually agree with the poster. Marriage has historically been defined as "a ritual performed by a Christian priest", more or less. We should let the Christians keep their obscure sacred rites, and just get on with our lives. More importantly, the state should not have anything to do with marriage, or meditation, or prayer, or chicken sacrifices, or any other religious ritual. That's what churches are for.

    Now, if a gay couple wants to remain Christian for some reason, and they want to get married, they should take it up with their local priest. For other people, though, there is no reason to go through a weird ritual just to get some tax benefits.
    >|<*:=
    [ Parent ]

    Correct me if I'm wrong here... (4.60 / 5) (#149)
    by losthalo on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:59:08 PM EST

    ...but I do think marriage predates Christianity, and possibly Judaism as well, by centuries. More importantly, the state should not have anything to do with marriage, or meditation, or prayer, or chicken sacrifices, or any other religious ritual. That's what churches are for.

    In fact, marriage is as much a social construct as a religious one, and I think that's a good indication that people should get their grubby little hands off of it and let it be whatever it is to whomever wants to use it. No one can own it, and those who try are fooling themselves...

    (Losthalo)

    "Oh, just a little brainwashing..."
    "Wash, rinse, repeat..."

    [ Parent ]
    Sort of (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by bugmaster on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 11:50:51 PM EST

    This is technically true; however, in the USA, marriage means something specific -- a church, a priest, "till death do us part", etc. This notion of marriage has superceded the traditional notion -- for better or for worse. Sure, we can attempt to change this situation, but why bother ? It won't actually change anything functionally, and I don't think cosmetic changes will cut it at this point.
    >|<*:=
    [ Parent ]
    eh? (4.66 / 3) (#212)
    by /dev/niall on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:08:55 PM EST

    As someone who was married in a place that was not a church, by a woman who was not a priest:

    Up yours.

    Approximate figures:

    221,459,000 people were married in the U.S. in 2000.
    159,030,000 people were Christian.

    That makes over 62 million people in the United States who probably would not agree with your concept of marriage. No "cosmetic change" is necessary, unless you want to ignore that many people.
    --
    "compared to the other apes, my genitals are gigantic" -- TheophileEscargot
    [ Parent ]

    Riiight... (5.00 / 2) (#273)
    by losthalo on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:23:35 PM EST

    This is technically true; however, in the USA, marriage means something specific -- a church, a priest, "till death do us part", etc.

    Probably to American Christians, yeah, it does. We're not all Christians, despite what you might be assuming.

    (Losthalo)
    "Just a little brainwashing..."
    "Wash, rinse, repeat..."

    [ Parent ]
    Right. (5.00 / 7) (#132)
    by ephelon on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:46:31 PM EST

    I agree; the problem with marriages of today is that they are considered many as nothing more than a contract.  To associate this concept with homosexuals is, however, utterly ignorant.

    Many homosexuals would argue their relationship to be as loving or moreso than any hetero partners they know.  Love and procreation are orthogonal concepts.  Should a new law be passed that prohibits those who are sterile from being married?

    Marriage, as defined by the state, IS simply a contract.  Marriage, as defined by the people that enter into it, is personal choice.  To impose your views of marriage onto those that would not have them is rather facist.

    Marriage is not exclusivly a religious concept, not is it exclusive to your religion.  The concept has existed throughout recorded history.  It does not, therefore, make any sense to denounce homosexual marriage because it is not in the service of your god.

    Incidentally, gay marriage does not preclude children, either.  I once met a very interesting woman.  Her parents (she had four) were a gay couple, and a lesbian couple.  She was quite intelligent and well-adjusted.  Personally, I attribute this to having the support of four devoted parents, not two, or as is often the case today; none.  And just in case you were wondering, she did not catch gay-ness from her parents.
    -- This is not my home; the cats just let me stay here.
    [ Parent ]

    Other way around... (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by trimethyl on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:24:32 PM EST

    To associate this concept with homosexuals is, however, utterly ignorant.

    Actually, it isn't ignorant at all. The idea of marriage being nothing more than a mere contractual arrangement started with the feminists (who were vying for the "right" to divorce), and picked up by the homosexual lobby.

    Which is exactly the problem. If indeed, marriage becomes defined as a de facto contract between two people, this makes every wife a prostitute, and every husband a Jon. Marriage should be (and is, depending on the couple) more than just an "agreement" between two people. Marriage is supposed to be evidence of divine union, brought about by God.

    I could explain more, but it would be rather lengthy post. One of the big problems with feminism was that they successfully removed the idea of marriage as a divine covenant (They're called vows for a reason...) from the American psyche. Once this had been done, it was very easy for homosexuals to say "look, our union is just like their union..." - except that it isn't in any way comparable when considered in the divine context.



    [ Parent ]
    Separation of church and state (5.00 / 4) (#277)
    by GhostfacedFiddlah on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:31:04 PM EST

    There should be no laws based on "divinity".  If you can come up with secular reasoning on how society is harmed by homosexual marriage, I'm willing to listen.  

    No reasons involving "degradation of values" - if values degrade but there are no consequences (economic disaster, mass hysteria, etc), then the values are wrong, not the action degrading them.

    I'm not asking that anyone accept that a gay couple has a spiritual bond that can't be broken, I'm not asking anyone to accept that "god loves fags".  I'm asking for a non-religious answer as to why they should not have the same benefits as any other two people who love each other.  Once this is done, and any two people can enjoy the benefits of marriage (not just sexual couples - but best friends, brother and sister - anyone who cares deeply for their "spouse" and at least partly relies on them for income) - then a "civil union" loses all connotations of traditional "marriage".

    Then the religious can sit back and enjoy their once-again-pure "Christian Marriages" while they look contemptuously on all of the sinners surrounding them.

    [ Parent ]

    Typical (5.00 / 1) (#351)
    by trimethyl on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 03:56:32 PM EST

    I'm asking for a non-religious answer...

    Which is all too common. Apparently, religion and truth have nothing in common in the mind of the common k5'er. Religion is not supposed to be a mere mental crutch for the weak-minded. It should define the very foundations for what one believes to be true or untrue.



    [ Parent ]
    That's not what I'm saying (5.00 / 2) (#354)
    by GhostfacedFiddlah on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 04:44:54 PM EST

    I'm not saying that religion and truth can't intersect, I'm saying that because it's religious, doesn't mean that it's true.  There are enough mutually-exclusive religions to back that statement up.

    This is the very reason people desire separation of church and state.  A church can dictate its own morals to its congregation, but not to the world at large.  There are some "truths" however, where religious and non-religious alike intersect.  "Thou shalt not kill" - it's a moral argument by the church.  But in government, it's a recognition of the fact that if people were allowed to kill each other indiscriminately without punishment, society would be worse off.

    "Thou shalt not gay up the institution of marriage" isn't one of these rules.

    And you didn't listen to the main point I was making (yes, I know - as a troll, that's your job) - once all connotations of a traditional marriage are removed from a civil union, then maybe the word "marriage" will start to have real meaning again.  Right now it's so wrapped up in legalities that the rules of marriage have taken on more importance than the bonding of souls.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing new. (1.88 / 9) (#135)
    by tkatchev on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:03:38 PM EST

    We're having bad-old pagan institutions thrust on us again.

    It's just a very small step from where we are now to sacrificial infanticide and temple prostitution.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    No, actually, that's a very large step. (3.66 / 3) (#169)
    by Blah Blah on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:29:27 AM EST

    And all those people giving you ones agree with me. I guess you're just plain wrong, tkatchev.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (2.33 / 3) (#184)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:50:37 AM EST


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    What about hetero couples without children?? (4.50 / 4) (#136)
    by molo on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:06:39 PM EST

    This is specious logic.  Are you going to say that a marriage between a hetero couple that can't/choose not to/won't have children is not a real marriage?

    Children do not make a marriage and a marriage doesn't have to make children.

    -molo

    --
    Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn
    [ Parent ]

    Just one fix... (4.85 / 7) (#150)
    by losthalo on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:27:48 PM EST

    "marriage" is simply a contract

    Which is exactly the problem with marriage today. It has lost its meaning as a God-ordained, inseparable union of a man and woman, and has been reduced to "contractual" status.


    If you turn it back into a 'God-ordained' anything, it will then have to fall outside the realm of law (Separation of church and state), and you won't be able to use the law to enforce your precious definition of 'marriage'.

    There's only one catch. Catch-22.

    Just render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and get on with your lives already...

    (Losthalo)

    [ Parent ]
    Establishment clause cuts both ways (3.00 / 2) (#226)
    by trimethyl on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:12:02 PM EST

    The separation of church and state clause is not actually in the Constitution - rather, this is the moniker given to standing case law where the phrase "Congress shall make no law ... aiding or abetting an establishment of religion..." has been used to deny government funding for anything religious. It would seem that to define marriage as anything but God-ordained would be to "abet an establishment of religion", and to not recognize it at all would be socially unworkable. (Legal rights, etc...)



    [ Parent ]
    No .it doesn't. (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by losthalo on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:29:52 PM EST

    It would seem that to define marriage as anything but God-ordained would be to "abet an establishment of religion",

    Come again? You seem to be making this a Boolean question, which it certainly is not. It's not 'either/or' it's 'is this religious?'.

    Marriage as an institution could get along just fine without government defining or abetting it. (The same as religion does.) And all of those "attached" goodies don't have to be attached, they're attached because government (probably un-Constitutionally, definitely in lack of foresight) attached them, nothing more.

    (Losthalo)

    [ Parent ]
    What about us? (5.00 / 3) (#268)
    by djaynewman on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:43:39 PM EST

    You state that an important part of marriage is procreation. Also that it is a sacrifice in the service of God.

    Then you must consider my marriage equally bad. When we entered in marriage we decided that we would have no children. Neither of us is any sort of member of the Christian church.

    What, then, distinguishes us from a gay couple, other than sexual positions?

    Also, you have two misconceptions. First, a homosexual marriage can contribute to the social well-being and stability of their communinity; they *aren't* allowed to do so by forbidding marriage. Second, homosexual couples have children, either by surrogate parents or adoption.

    D. Jay Newman



    [ Parent ]
    Social acceptance (4.37 / 8) (#123)
    by phliar on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 04:59:08 PM EST

    While I'm sure that gay couples desire social acceptance, I don't think they have any notions that getting equal rights ("M-Corp") will immediately lead to social acceptance; they simply want the same legal rights. These include things like adoption rights, rights in medical emergencies, housing rights etc. (I predict social acceptance for gay/queer people will come before people of colour have it -- if you just see someone at work or at a party you don't always immediately know if they're gay.)

    Of course my view may be skewed since I live in San Francisco and know many gay couples, all of whom already have social acceptance.

    Faster, faster, until the thrill of...

    Social acceptance...... (3.27 / 11) (#130)
    by SacredSalt on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:41:05 PM EST

    I'm sure I'll offend plenty, but the truth is not always pleasant, nor is it "PC". I'm not swayed by the media campaign that has been going on for the past 20 years to distort the image of gay people. I worked in medicine long enough to see the ugly side of it, and know enough gay people to know the other side of the story. A lot of it isn't pleasant, and the TV images they spew simply don't change the reality on the ground. They don't talk about the lawyer who had over 700 partners on the side, and gave HIV to his wife but wouldn't tell her. Nor do they the men who have had 100-1000 partners in the past few years. You wont see them talk about the street workers who sell their bodies in the park, and the men who get arrested for sex in the park and in the restrooms. They wont talk about the teacher who was taking his under 14 students home and who was getting blackmailed by another student. They wont talk about the HIV positive gay man than donated blood to the red cross more than 100 times. They wont tell you that the highest incidece of domestic violence is in lesbian relationships. If they ever put on a male victim of sexual abuse it will only be because the abuser is a priest. They wont talk about the teachers, the boy scout troop leaders! They might tell you about the high suicide rates, they might talk even interview a few selectively choosen gay people -- usually with their partners well out of view. Social acceptance? I don't think so and with good reasons. The truth isn't pretty on the other side of the fence either: The brass tacks of the issue is, marriage is both a union for the benefit of the couple and for the benefit of children. Single moms do a lousy job of teaching kids accountability and responsibility. Maybe because we treat women in a way that they never had to learn accountability and responsibility. 85%+ of the people in prison come from single mother homes. A lesbian couple raising a child is just going to reinforce this times two. A couple gay men might have a better chance of not raising screw ups, but many such men lose the traits that make them men and behave as women do -- irrational, unaccountable, emotional. I see the same behavior in children who are raised without fathers. It's not a matter of dad sending a check either. Money does not replace what he does. 80% of NCP's pay their child support. Regardless of income levels, the children raied by single mom's do terrible in a great many areas. Are gay couples going to do a better job? I have serious reservations about that. Children are on the table in this as well, and you would do well to remember that.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're a bit off here. (4.42 / 7) (#142)
    by Wain on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:23:45 PM EST

    The heathens in which you describe throughout the beginning of your point, the people who've had sex with thousands of partners, the bi-lawyer who gave HIV to his wife, etc...  firstly, those people are a very small part of the gay population, studies have shown them to be about the same percentage as hetero people who perfrom the same kinds of behaviors, yes, I know it;s shocking, but the hetero world is full of promiscuous, irresponsible people too.

    Most gays and lesbians do not act in that way, and that behavior is particularly atypical when you start talking about the gays that want to be married or especially raise children.  There is no one preson who is off cavorting with every guy he/she can put his/her hands on that wants the burden of children, man or woman.

    The other thing you must remember is that Homosexuals have become increasingly responsible over the past 25 years, MUCH more so than pretty much any other group when it comes to learning about how to have decent relationships, sexual safety, promiscuity/monogamy, and adjusting to fit the 'American' lifestyle.

    Lesbians so still have a higher level of domestic abuse last I knew, I won't argue with that, but I don't know what that stems from, and I have this gut feeling that society not treating them like garbage and filth might help.


    [ Parent ]

    "Well I'll tell you..." (4.55 / 9) (#148)
    by losthalo on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:50:08 PM EST

    They don't talk about the lawyer who had over 700 partners on the side, and gave HIV to his wife but wouldn't tell her. Nor do they the men who have had 100-1000 partners in the past few years.

    This sort of behavior is hardly restricted to homosexuals.

    You wont see them talk about the street workers who sell their bodies in the park, and the men who get arrested for sex in the park and in the restrooms.

    Same problem here, you're ignoring the fact that heteros engage in these same dangerous behaviors.

    They wont talk about the teacher who was taking his under 14 students home and who was getting blackmailed by another student.

    Wow, I could probably just give the same reply to each of these points, couldn't I?

    They wont talk about the HIV positive gay man than donated blood to the red cross more than 100 times.

    Gay people sometimes do fucked-up things to hurt other people? Seems to be a problem with people anywhere you go, doesn't it?

    They might tell you about the high suicide rates

    Suicide rates tend to be high among people stigmatized for attributes they can't control.

    Furthermore, since you seem to be on a moral soapbox here, riddle me this: isn't it important to be caring toward one's fellow man? Isn't helping others and dealing in a civilized manner with others the best approach? I suppose you can go on a witch hunt for homosexuals, but you'll find once they're all gone that there are still problems.

    You are allowing the little sliver of the world that you see, and your own bias, to cloud your judgement. Open your damn eyes a little farther. Homosexuals fuck up, the same as we all do. It sure would be easy if some marginal portion of society really were more messed-up than the rest, but the world just isn't that simple, and saying that it is just gets in the way of solving the real problems (why do a lot of homosexuals commit suicide? what can we do to help children of single mothers turn out all right? et cetera).

    (Losthalo)

    "And what also floats on water?"

    [ Parent ]
    Has it ever occurred to you... (5.00 / 6) (#182)
    by itsbruce on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:34:38 AM EST

    that higher promiscuity amongst homosexuals might be because permanent, monogamous homosexual relationships are made so hard to maintain by bigotry and discrimination? Especially when efforts to give such stable relationships some legal and financial support (automatically available to heterosexual couples) are attacked and vilified?

    Has it ever occurred to you that the hatred and bigotry you exemplify also plays a role in the higher suicide rate amongst homosexuals?

    If neither of these things has ever occurred to you, how do you manage to walk and breathe at the same time?

    You live in a neat little self-sustaining bubble of circular logic. Your bigotry helps make it harder for homosexuals to lead normal lives and then you use the fact that they find it difficult to lead normal lives as justification for your bigotry.

    The irony is that a large segment of the gay American population would dearly love the opportunity to be regular church-going, flag-saluting, family-first married Republicans and are frustrated in this by those who would be their natural allies if they weren't so unbelievably stupid.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    re: Social acceptance (3.33 / 3) (#210)
    by /dev/niall on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:53:06 PM EST

    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    Here's a real name: Earvin "Magic" Johnson. Guess what, heterosexual. Name one homosexual you mentioned in your post. Just one.

    Oh, I'm sure they're out there. I'm also pretty sure you are full of it.

    Is it really that surprising that "asshole" and "homosexual" are not mutually exclusive terms? Get over it; 90% of the people you see every day would act like assholes if they thought they could get away with it. It has nothing to do with sexual preference and everything to do with our society, of which we are all a part of and responsible for.
    --
    "compared to the other apes, my genitals are gigantic" -- TheophileEscargot
    [ Parent ]

    Chip on your shoulder about women? (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by hatshepsut on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:59:58 PM EST

    I just love being called irrational, unaccountable, and emotional.

    Hate to tell you, but I lived on my own for many years (after moving out of my parents' home, and before moving in with my then-fiance), and I can honestly say I did as well or better than most of my male acquaintances in terms of being a rational, fully accountable, and self-supporting human being.

    Stuff the sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    Any chuch that can see its way clear... (3.66 / 3) (#134)
    by mikelist on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:51:40 PM EST

    ...should allow gay couples to ratify their relationships, and it isn't a legitimate function of the government to proscribe it. I'm not real comfortable with the appellation 'marriage' on those terms, but agree that gay people should be able to live in much the same way as a married couple, share benefits and otherwise live a typical life. No straight person will be asked to pay their penalty in the afterlife, if any. TMU already promised no more floods.


    not likely (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Lenny on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:34:16 PM EST

    the problem with churches ratifying anything with homosexuals stems from the books they're based on. Muslims, Christians, & Jews all read from books that forbid it. I am sure there are some other religions that allow this, most "western" countries consist mainly of the 3 I mentioned.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    Well clearly some of them read differently (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by PylonHead on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:42:43 PM EST

    Since there are many denominations that have open and affirming policies towards homosexuals and even openly gay clergy.

    [ Parent ]
    They don't read differently.. (3.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Torka on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:07:55 PM EST

    They simply choose to ignore the parts of the scripture they find unpleasant.

    Not that that practise is restricted to homosexuals and their supporters, by any means.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm (5.00 / 1) (#324)
    by Remfin on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 01:34:29 AM EST

    I thought the Church was completely ignoring the old testament now anyways.  Or at least a lot of it (remember, always get a good price when you sell a slave to a family member!)

    [ Parent ]
    Wow, not one word about children in a marriage (2.85 / 7) (#139)
    by mami on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:13:07 PM EST

    Nice article, but I would say you missed to talk about the one issue and most probably the most important issue, i.e. the role of raising children in a heterosexual marriage. You don't even touch which role they play in a heterosexual marriage and the role they might, should or should not have in a gay marriage.

    The fact that you missed to mention them at all, though they are one major root cause for heterosexual couples to see in their marriage more than contract but an ethical and moral mandate for the well-being of their children, is enough to not comment on your article for me.

    Without talking about the children there is no resolution.

    what about single parent families (4.50 / 2) (#151)
    by crazycanuck on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 08:32:47 PM EST

    single mothers are allowed to have children.

    hell, lesbians can get in vitro fertilisation, why not adoption? some of these laws make no sense.

    [ Parent ]

    sure they can have it all ... (3.33 / 6) (#166)
    by mami on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 11:24:39 PM EST

    but you really think that's what they want? And why should the wishes of minority number of lesbian women, who want children by any means, be the basis for general laws that affect the majority of women?

    BTW, most single parent families may be families, but if you are honest, you would have to admit that they feel like broken families. And if you don't believe it, just look around yourself at women living "happily" in their "single parent families". Images speak louder than words. But, for sure, what one doesn't want to admit nor to see, one conveniently overlooks to not get in conflict with one's ideologies.

    If single parent families were something like a "dream come through" for most women, I bet you we would have been smart enough to never marry a guy. But we did... so how does that make sense to you now?

    Bbecause it looks as if we have more lesbian women than ever, this might be seen as a sign of increasing gender conflicts. A convenient way out of those conflicts might be to choose to lesbian relationship. Well, I don't mind.

    But that's for sure no basis for me to support a change in laws that would have major affects on how children are raised. Just because you have your gender issues, doesn't mean that you play out your selfish, petty problems and interests on the back of the children, who have a right to be raised by a union of their father and their mother or another union with preferably two representatives of each gender.

    [ Parent ]

    Stop speaking for other people (5.00 / 6) (#172)
    by Blah Blah on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:45:31 AM EST

    but you really think that's what they want?

    I don't know, why don't we actually ask them? Instead of you putting words in their mouths.

    And why should the wishes of minority number of lesbian women ... be the basis for general laws that affect the majority of women?

    Please explain how state recognition of same-sex unions prevents "the majority of women" from marrying whichever man they choose, or having as many children as they want, or raising them however they want. Help me out here, I'm trying to understand your thought processes.

    if you are honest, you would have to admit that they feel like broken families.

    I wouldn't admit anything. I would go ask some single parent families how they feel about their own situation. The last thing I would do is ask you, mami! What the hell do you know?

    one conveniently overlooks to not get in conflict with one's ideologies.

    The ideology of most K5 commentors seems to be "live and let live". You're the one who is trying to dictate how other people should live their lives.

    If single parent families were something like a "dream come through" for most women, I bet you we would have been smart enough to never marry a guy

    There you go again, speaking for other people. Why don't you stick to speaking for yourself?

    that's for sure no basis for me to support a change in laws that would have major affects on how children are raised.

    The law would have no such effect. Please explain how that law would prevent you from raising your children however you see fit. As for other people's children, it's no business of yours how they are raised.

    [ Parent ]

    I dictate how other people should live? (5.00 / 1) (#305)
    by mami on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:01:10 PM EST

    and you are telling me I should stop talking for other people? How come that you take the freedom to tell me for whom and about what I am allowed to speak?

    As for other people's children, it's no business of yours how they are raised.

    As a legislator and someone, who votes for legislators, it is very well my business how laws are crafted and you know very well that this is solely a questions of how laws are written and nothing else.

    Who do you think you are to tell me what is supposedly my business and what not? Give me a break and stop your imposing attitudes.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, yeah. I know tons of single women (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:13:32 PM EST

    who were thrilled to death when they found out they were pregnant!


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    that's not the point (5.00 / 1) (#282)
    by crazycanuck on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:42:30 PM EST

    the point is that marriage and children have absolutely nothing to do with eachother in today's society.

    [ Parent ]
    marriage has nothing to do with children... (5.00 / 7) (#162)
    by MikeWarren on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 10:06:09 PM EST

    ...lots and lots of couples (married or
    unmarried) have no children. Lots of unmarried
    couples have children. Lots of single people
    have children. What the hell does marriage have to
    do with children anymore?
    -- mike warren
    [ Parent ]
    hear the words of a man in denial (nt) (2.14 / 7) (#167)
    by mami on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 11:27:25 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    the rating of my comment proves more denial. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#307)
    by mami on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:04:15 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#326)
    by Josh A on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 02:14:02 AM EST

    People didn't mod your comment down because they're in denial. They modded it down because it was too easy, unoriginal, and consisted of mere assertion with no argument or fact to back it up.

    Anyway, the person you claim is in denial seems to be quite right. Perhaps it is you who is in denail. Check this article: http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030811/CODEFINE//?q uery=same+sex+marriage

    Particularly this part:

    As for procreation, Boswell shows quite clearly that in classical societies procreation was not the foundation of marriage. Mutual consent and marital affection were the legal basis for Roman marriages. In the Christian era, even as late as the 12th century, theologians were arguing that "the ideals of Christian marriage were most fully realized when the marriage was never physically consummated," and that "marriage consisted in the mutual agreement of the couple, not in their carnal copulation." Once again, the concept that producing offspring is the foundation of marriage was established only in the late Middle Ages at a time of extreme intolerance for sexual relations of any kind.

    ---
    Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


    [ Parent ]
    Ideals of Christian marriages in Roman times (5.00 / 1) (#337)
    by mami on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 11:43:46 AM EST

    have nothing to do with nowadays marriage laws in any constitutional democracy that respects the separation of church and state.

    [ Parent ]
    Ideals of Christian marriages in Roman times (5.00 / 1) (#338)
    by mami on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 11:57:18 AM EST

    have nothing to do with nowadays marriage laws in any constitutional democracy that respects the separation of church and state. And I am pretty sure that this quote ("the ideals of Christian marriage were most fully realized when the marriage was never physically consummated") has been made in a completely different context. But I am too uninterested in discussing this issue under the umbrella of Christian ideals, sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    Learn to read, Dude (5.00 / 1) (#342)
    by itsbruce on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:38:13 PM EST

    Who said anything about Christian marriages in Roman times? The Roman idea of marriage predates Christianity and was adopted by the Christian church when it took over Rome.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    I don't care - dude - (5.00 / 1) (#345)
    by mami on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:51:44 PM EST

    I am a beer drinking Germanic nordish goddess and poor Romans, who tried to throw me off my throne can't get my attention. Stop reading, learn to live.

    [ Parent ]
    Problems AND issues (none / 0) (#499)
    by Josh A on Mon Nov 03, 2003 at 07:36:21 AM EST

    And children "have nothing to do with nowadays marriage laws". The point is, children often had nothing to do with marriage in its earlier contexts, they need have no bearing on  marriage now, and I've not seen you provide one whit of argument to the contrary this entire discussion.

    To bring up the topic of children in this article would have been to introduce an irrelevant topic.

    We can therefore rephrase your original assertion thusly:

    "Without talking about the red herring there is no resolution."

    And now we can see clearly that we need not hold back from dismissing it and moving on.

    ---
    Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


    [ Parent ]
    Nothing like denying a few thousand years (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:10:36 PM EST

    of history.

    Until the advent of birth control, marriage was entirely about children - caring for them, protecting them, and so on. Childless couples were pitied, not held up as an alternate example. Hell, the entire idea of marrying for love didn't exist until relatively recently.

    Go ahead, zero me if you like - but that won't change history.


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    Or a few thousand more (5.00 / 2) (#325)
    by Josh A on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 02:12:20 AM EST

    Check this article: http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030811/CODEFINE//?q uery=same+sex+marriage

    Particularly this part:

    As for procreation, Boswell shows quite clearly that in classical societies procreation was not the foundation of marriage. Mutual consent and marital affection were the legal basis for Roman marriages. In the Christian era, even as late as the 12th century, theologians were arguing that "the ideals of Christian marriage were most fully realized when the marriage was never physically consummated," and that "marriage consisted in the mutual agreement of the couple, not in their carnal copulation." Once again, the concept that producing offspring is the foundation of marriage was established only in the late Middle Ages at a time of extreme intolerance for sexual relations of any kind.

    ---
    Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


    [ Parent ]
    Where's the problem? (4.66 / 3) (#183)
    by itsbruce on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:30:38 AM EST

    The law states that parents, whether adoptive or natural, have specific responsibilities towards their children regardless of their married state. So this really isn't relevant to whether or not gay people can get married.

    Little news flash for you: gay people have children all the time. Those that do have these responsibilities.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    Well, those parents, (5.00 / 1) (#392)
    by mami on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 05:12:01 AM EST

    wether adoptive or natural, were so far considered pairs of two people with different sex. So far it was considered desirable to have children raised by representatives of the two sexes and of course it does not matter of those couples are married or not or if they are the biological parents of the children or not. It does though matter if the couples are unions that represent only one sex. I hope I am allowed to think that way.

    So far the legislators have not thought out this issue, because it didn't come up before.

    [ Parent ]

    Its in there! (4.50 / 2) (#198)
    by BrentN on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 11:21:42 AM EST

    When you talk in terms of contract law, anything becomes possible. If the "State" wants to mandate that Subchapter M corps (I called them Subchapter F - for Family, when I thought it up) have required legal clauses in their incorporation documents dealing with the disposition of any offspring, then that's OK.

    And, the State has a "compelling interest" in making that assurance. What that gets us over current marriage law is that currently, marriage and divorce proceedings are not only wildly variant from state to state, but from judge to judge. Placing these codifications on the legal aspects of marriage will even the playing field for folks.

    [ Parent ]

    What's your point? (5.00 / 2) (#348)
    by epepke on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 02:19:25 PM EST

    I've read this and your comments several times, and I can't get anything out of it other than a vague "hooray for heterosexual marraige and children" and a predilection for telling people that they're in denial.

    The fact that you missed to mention them at all, though they are one major root cause for heterosexual couples to see in their marriage more than contract but an ethical and moral mandate for the well-being of their children, is enough to not comment on your article for me.

    Again, what are you saying? Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that existing laws on marriage have lots of verbage on moral mandates for the well-being of children, but they don't. The papers I signed when I got married didn't even mention children.

    Perhaps you believe that there is a large body of law dealing with children specifically in marriages. But there isn't. There used to be, but over the past 25 years, most of it has been gotten rid of. There are only a few clauses remaining, such as the fact that in a few states any child born during the time of a marriage is considered the child of the father. Statues like these would have to be dealt with but, as the original author pointed out, there's no insurmountable problem.

    If you're talking as you say about what is above and beyond the contract, well, then that's above and beyond the contract, isn't it? Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that gays don't have such feelings of ethical and moral mandates. But you'd be wrong about that, too. Gays who get into couples and raise children behave substantially the same way that heterosexual couples do. If anything, in my experience they're better parents, which probably does not indicate any superiority in parental skills but rather is probably an artifact of the fact that you have to be pretty motivated in the first place to try to raise a child as part of a gay couple. Furthermore, plenty of gays have marriage ceremonies (which are not, of course, legal) and wear wedding rings. They often refer to their informal unions as marriages and use traditional terms like "husband" and "wife."

    In any event, in every state where it's legal for gay people to live together, it's legal for gay person with custody of a child to raise the child in a household with a lover. It's also legal in most states for a gay couple to adopt a child. There are also a lot of informal arrangements for child-raising that are largely untroubled by the law.

    So, it's already happening. Perhaps you believe that something like an M-corp is going to cause some sort of explosion in the number of gays who raise children, but I doubt it.

    Or perhaps you're vaguely uneasy about the prospect but haven't stated quite why, and "the children" is an easy trump card to play.

    I can't tell, so I'll stop guessing. But just what, exactly, is your point?


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    hmm (5.00 / 1) (#393)
    by mami on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 05:48:16 AM EST

    if you would just try to not read by default some sort of moralizing stuff into my comments. I am sure there are thousands of nice, well meaning and emotionally fit parents out there among gay couples, who do a great job raising kids.

    That does not mean that I would have to nilly-willy support the same legal rights and responsibilites via children for gay couples compared to heterosexual couples.  

    You mention the disappearance of a body of law considering children in marriage laws. I am not an lawyer, but as far as I can see, most people become aware of those laws, when they get a divorce and fight for their children. Obviously that's what happens on a daily basis. So, whatever, if there is no body of law that's written for the interests of the children, I just wonder how come that people fight each other tooth and nails about their rights and responsibilites about those in case of a divorce.

    Let me ask you this:

    Assume I am a married woman in a heterosexual marriage and have two kids with my husbabnd.

    Let's assume that I was a closet lesbian during those years, I forced myself into a heterosexual marriage, in which I accepted to have my own children.

    Now, over the years, I can't stand it anymore. I want out and live openly in a marriage with my lesbian lover. According to you I would have the right to such a marriage, or not? Do I have to divorce first out of a heterosexual marriage for that? Or could I get married in a homosexual marriage and be at the same time married in a heterosexual one? Does that constitute polygamy?

    If a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage are the same and you are not a supporter of polygamy, I would have to divorce out of my heterosexual marriage first, before I can be married in a homosexual one, right?

    My husband, whom I would leave for a lesbian lover, starts fighting for his children, stating that he insists to not lose his parental rights over his kids. I say in court, he is an abusive father and bastard (good excuse, because who can really know it's true or not)  and I fight to have taken his rights away from his children.

    My lesbian lover, whom I intend to marry, is a lovely parent and just would die to raise my children. Obviously she competes for my children against my husband, who is BTW the biological father two. She can't find enough arguments to prove that she is the better parent than he.

    Do you really think the courts are up to take such crappy situations? Or do you think it's worth thinking about all the unintended consequences of hastily written laws beforehand and not after the fact.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#435)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 07:27:02 PM EST

    You seem to be confused. The laws protecting the rights and welfare of children are, for the most part, entirely separate from the laws concerning marriage. Under the proposed M-Corp adjustment your hypothetical scenario would be no different than if you had left your husband for a heterosexual lover. No, you couldn't marry without first recieving a divorce or you'd run afoul of the legal prohibition on polygamy.

    As epeke said earlier, none of this has much at all to do with the body of law concerning the welfare of children. For the most part, marriage only confers joint legal and physical custody by default, but that can be subject to mediation by a court. For instance, a married couple who don't live together but refuse to get a divorce could very well find themselves in need of having a court settle custody issues. And when a couple gets divorced it is a different set of laws and legal authorities that are concerned with determining custody than are involved in dividing up property--the law does not treat children as common property.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#451)
    by epepke on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 02:46:39 AM EST

    if you would just try to not read by default some sort of moralizing stuff into my comments. I am sure there are thousands of nice, well meaning and emotionally fit parents out there among gay couples, who do a great job raising kids.

    Oh, come on! You were unclear. If you have difficulties being clear in English, there's no dishonor in that, but at least have the decency to admit it. Histrionic umbrage doesn't make it. I've had to guess because you were unclear.

    You mention the disappearance of a body of law considering children in marriage laws. I am not an lawyer, but as far as I can see, most people become aware of those laws, when they get a divorce and fight for their children. Obviously that's what happens on a daily basis. So, whatever, if there is no body of law that's written for the interests of the children, I just wonder how come that people fight each other tooth and nails about their rights and responsibilites about those in case of a divorce.

    Are you trying to be obtuse? There is a body of law written for the interests of children, but the fact is that it is, for the most part, independent of marriage law.

    Now, over the years, I can't stand it anymore. I want out and live openly in a marriage with my lesbian lover. According to you I would have the right to such a marriage, or not? Do I have to divorce first out of a heterosexual marriage for that?

    According to existing marriage law or any reasonable same-sex extension of same, yes.

    If a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage are the same and you are not a supporter of polygamy, I would have to divorce out of my heterosexual marriage first, before I can be married in a homosexual one, right?

    It doesn't matter what I support.

    My husband, whom I would leave for a lesbian lover, starts fighting for his children, stating that he insists to not lose his parental rights over his kids. I say in court, he is an abusive father and bastard (good excuse, because who can really know it's true or not) and I fight to have taken his rights away from his children.

    This is pretty common female behavior in the United States. Again, it doesn't matter what I support, but just for the record, I support joint physical custody unless there is a very good reason to choose otherwise.

    IANAL either, but for three years I was Florida coordinator for an organization that dealt with custody battles. I saw quite a few during that time. There was a lot of stuff that made me sick (which is why I resigned), but your objections don't match anything on the list.

    My lesbian lover, whom I intend to marry, is a lovely parent and just would die to raise my children. Obviously she competes for my children against my husband, who is BTW the biological father two. She can't find enough arguments to prove that she is the better parent than he. Do you really think the courts are up to take such crappy situations?

    They do it constantly, all the time, over and over again, ad infinitum. And in all cases that I have run across, whether the New Spouse would be a good parent is considered totally irrelevant to the issue of granting custory. Occasionally, the situation of the homes is taken into account, but this has nothing to do with whether the New Spouse would be a good parent. There is no presumption that the New Spouse is going to be a parent at all. Your putative lesbian lover, or a hypothetical heterosexual male lover, would not even get a chance to present any arguments in court. At all.

    Or do you think it's worth thinking about all the unintended consequences of hastily written laws beforehand and not after the fact.

    Oh, I think it's worth looking at unintended consequences. But I also think that it's worth knowing shit from Shinola about existing law first.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    thanks, mrs lovejoy -nt- (5.00 / 1) (#404)
    by ItchyNell on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 10:36:58 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Why is the government involved in marrages? (4.12 / 8) (#158)
    by Morally Inflexible on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 09:20:04 PM EST

    All this blather about the morality and logistics of homosexual unions is irrelivant to the main issue here.

    Marrage is a church function. This idea that the state should treat it's citizens differently based on weather or not they have undergone a religious ritual is counter to the seperation of church and state.

    Good question. (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by miah on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:43:47 AM EST

    Marriage is a social function, not a church function.

    The primary example of limits on who one can marry being enforced society wide, at least from a western stance, was during the protestant reformation. The Catholic church decried that a marriage not performed, or sponsored, by the Catholic church is not recognized in the eyes of God. This was just another way to "keep them in the pews".

    The gov't is involved in marriages as they are not a social dealing once property comes into the picture. Marriage, in the US, is nothing more than a contract that both parties agree to combine their assets. There are other corrolarys that attach to this like barnacles on an ugly boat. Insurance benefits are one such barnacle. Next-of-kin consideration is also on this list. It goes on and on. The gov't in this case is now the legal arbiter of affairs concerning who owns what property. There was a time in the US that couples could not own a house unless they were married.

    Your comment is stupid. There is no magic silver bullet solution. You cannot just wave the wand of "separation of church and state" and have all of this go away. If it were that simple, it would have happened a long time ago and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    Did I just feed another troll?

    Religion is not the opiate of the masses. It is the biker grade crystal meth of the masses.
    SLAVEWAGE
    [ Parent ]

    whose being naive (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by lavian on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:21:22 AM EST

    I think you should ask yourself whose being niave here. Marriage is most certainly much more than a church function. Marriage is an institution separate from the church, provided for specifically by every known civilization in one form or another. Governments look to marriage as a tool to provide social and economic stability. Therefore, the logistics of homosexual unions is, I believe, a valid area of discussion.

    [ Parent ]
    Good idea. (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:24:20 PM EST

    If marriage status was not mentioned in any laws at all, there wouldn't be much debate. But it is. Or if the state recognized any marriage performed by a recognized religious organization, there wouldn't be much problem. But currently, it only recognizes marriages between men and women.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Ummm... As the saying goes... (5.00 / 2) (#245)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:28:49 PM EST

    to protect the children?

    Hark back to say, 200 years ago, when women had no rights to speak of and children weren't much better than property. Marriage existed basically to compel men to support the families they created.


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    The Real Christian Historty of Marriage (4.44 / 9) (#163)
    by cow_lick on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 10:35:43 PM EST

    Interesting article on same sex marriage. Opponents often claim people are trying to change the definition of marriage, which has always been between one man and one woman. Apparently not.

    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#355)
    by eries on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 04:58:31 PM EST

    thanks for posting this link
    Promoting open-source OO code reuse on the web: the Enzyme open-source project
    [ Parent ]
    What always most bugs me... (3.00 / 5) (#189)
    by esrever on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:34:05 AM EST

    ...Is the number of people who couch the argument for gay marriage (or similar) in terms of a 'discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation' fight. Clearly, it is not. Any homosexual individual has all of the rights that I or anyone else does; if they don't like the terms that those rights come with, then it is *them* that are being discriminatory, not anyone else. So the question arises, why change the definition of marriage at all? If homosexual individuals can get married to members of the opposite sex for the purposes of financial advantage/security/gain (and they can), then why do they need to get marriage changed?
    The answer, of course, is that it's about more than that, as the author touched upon; it's about *social acceptance*. And, quite frankly, it seems pretty clear that large numbers of people with vested interests in seeing the law changed aren't prepared to acknowledge that.
    I would be quite prepared to participate in a rational debate about changing the law to generate social acceptance, but unfortunately most of the debate swirls around the twin canards of 'equal rights' and 'ending discrimination' -- both clearly bogus arguments for generating law change.


    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    1960s What always most bugs me... (5.00 / 5) (#224)
    by ibsulon on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:08:47 PM EST

    ...Is the number of people who couch the argument for interracial marriage (or similar) in terms of a 'discrimination on the grounds of race' fight. Clearly, it is not. Any colored individual has all of the rights that I or anyone else does; if they don't like the terms that those rights come with, then it is *them* that are being discriminatory, not anyone else. So the question arises, why change the definition of marriage at all? If colored individuals can get married to members of the same race for the purposes of financial advantage/security/gain (and they can), then why do they need to get marriage changed?
    The answer, of course, is that it's about more than that, as the author touched upon; it's about *social acceptance*. And, quite frankly, it seems pretty clear that large numbers of people with vested interests in seeing the law changed aren't prepared to acknowledge that.
    I would be quite prepared to participate in a rational debate about changing the law to generate social acceptance, but unfortunately most of the debate swirls around the twin canards of 'equal rights' and 'ending discrimination' -- both clearly bogus arguments for generating law change.

    (Apologies for the C&P, but try this on any anti-gay marriage statement and it suddenly seems very clear.)

    [ Parent ]

    *bzzzt* wrong answer (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by esrever on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:04:59 PM EST

    Your corollary is bogus. You are claiming that the law discriminates against homosexuals. You tell me *exactly* how many more rights to marry a man I have (as a heterosexual) that a homosexual man does not.

    The answer is, Zero. I have _no_ more rights than any homosexual does currently, ergo, this is not an issue of discrimination.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Easy (5.00 / 2) (#316)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 10:20:05 PM EST

    As a man, you have the right to marry a woman. But a woman does not. That's sexism. It's a sort of sexism which primarily affects homosexuals. Therefore, it is discrimination against homosexuals.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    *bzzzzt* wrong again (3.00 / 2) (#321)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:30:34 AM EST

    As a citizen I have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. We don't have laws set up such that men have special 'rights' as a man to marry a woman and women some special 'right' to marry a man. Your thinking is confused. As a person, you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination here.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Incidentally (5.00 / 1) (#385)
    by scanman on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:48:13 AM EST

    This is very similair to the "equal but separate" reasoning that was used to justify racial discrimination and intolerance in the southern US during the segregation era.

    "[You are] a narrow-minded moron [and] a complete loser." - David Quartz
    "scanman: The moron." - ucblockhead
    "I prefer the term 'lifeskills impaired'" - Inoshiro

    [ Parent ]

    nothing like it at all. (3.00 / 2) (#436)
    by esrever on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 10:01:46 PM EST

    No, there is no 'equal but separate'. We all have exactly the same rights to do exactly the same thing.
    That is equal rights, folks!
    If the law said 'Openly homosexual individuals may not marry a member of the opposite sex, by heterosexuals may' that would be discrimination. To use your segregationist example; if the law said 'everyone no matter what colour must all sit at the front of the bus' that wouldn't be discrimination, would it? Even if all the coloured people *really* *really* didn't want to sit at the front of the bus, that *still* wouldn't be discrimination, because everyone is being treated equally, and subject to the same restrictions. People who insist upon trying to couch the argument for homosexual marriage in terms of 'equal rights' do themselves and their whole cause a disservice; this issue is around societal acceptance, NOT equal rights.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    to continue... (5.00 / 2) (#347)
    by ibsulon on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 02:07:43 PM EST

    Your corollary is bogus. You are claiming that the law discriminates against coloreds. You tell me *exactly* how many more rights to marry a woman of the same race I have (as a white man) that a colored man does not.

    [ Parent ]
    Totally confused (3.00 / 2) (#376)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:19:24 PM EST

    Your corollary is bogus. You are claiming that the law discriminates against coloreds. You tell me *exactly* how many more rights to marry a woman of the same race I have (as a white man) that a colored man does not.
    When on earth did I claim the law discriminates against coloureds? You all have the same rights, you can marry the white girl, and any other man regardless of race can marry the white girl. Sheesh.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Dense or troll? (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#387)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 02:07:14 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    You couldn't have missed the point more perfectly (5.00 / 2) (#233)
    by Nandeyanen on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:49:50 PM EST

    Let's follow along:

    If you're a hetero couple, and you want to get married, the xtian definition of marriage bestows upon you legal (government-granted) rights.

    If you're a gay couple, those rights are denied you, via a legal definition originating from a religious source.

    America supports religious freedom (supposedly). If an athiest says that they believe in marriage, writes their own definition, and includes same-sex couples, the government needs to support that. This is what you overlook: our legal system should not be used to prevent people from having the same rights as other people. Thus, 'discrimination' fits here.

    To say that only xtians, or only hetero people should be allowed marriage is allowing for something some people can't have- not because they aren't able, but because of how they live their lives. Could there be anything more un-American than that? Is this the land of the free, of the land of "live like me"?

    [ Parent ]
    Which rights are those? (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:06:15 PM EST

    Seriously, what rights do married couples have that gay couples can't get thru a little extra work?


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    The right to get them implicitly. (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:20:05 PM EST

    Person A can get 100 items for $10 in one go.
    Person B must go to 100 stores and buy each item separately for $0.10 each.

    This is not equality under the law.

    (for argument's sake. In reality, a marriage licence costs $50, and lawyer time for the multitude of contracts necessary to duplicate marriage will cost more, and there are some which cannot be done at all, like the income tax benefits)
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    hmmm. not sure about that... (5.00 / 1) (#304)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 08:47:36 PM EST

    You do have a point. That basic argument is used in a lot of civil rights cases now, but I honestly don't know that it always applies. People seem to be saying that any difference in difficulty is a denial of rights; and that's just surreal - the world we live in won't permit such perfect equality.

    I do realize that there comes a point when a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind - but when?


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    True... (5.00 / 1) (#314)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:59:39 PM EST

    ...if it were a minor difference in difficulty. But it is a MASSIVE difference in difficulty. There are so many little things in different fields, that would require contracts with different parties. Some parties would be unwilling to enter the contracts. Some rights are not possible to gain by contract. There is a point when a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind, and marriage is well past that point.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Well, I'll have to defer to you on this (4.00 / 2) (#319)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 10:47:01 PM EST

    since I haven't been through it I can't judge how difficult or easy it is...


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    Here You Go (5.00 / 2) (#244)
    by Pluto on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:27:14 PM EST

    It's been said again and again, but I'll recap a few "rights" for you that are not available to same-sex spouses:

  • Social security benefits for the surviving elderly spouse in a marriage.

  • Family-plan health-care insurance (paid for by the couple, of course) for the non-working or uninsured spouse.

  • Rights of inheritance and next of kin (unless the couple is wealthy and educated enough to have a lawyer draw up a number of trusts and agreements, and review them yearly for the laws in their state and other states where they may reside or travel).

    You'll find others as you take the time to read the discussions that follow this article.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

  • Well, right of inheritence (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:34:44 PM EST

    only needs a will to straighten that out. Health care: specifying that a domestic partner can share in health benefits doesn't require a marriage ceremony. My company does it now. Social Security: again, changing the SS rules doesn't require changing the rules on marriage.

    So, it still seems to come down to a symbol rather than anything else.


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    BZZZZZZZZT..... (3.50 / 2) (#267)
    by Pluto on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:38:31 PM EST

    only needs a will to straighten that out.

    Nope. That won't work.

    But thanks for playing!
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#295)
    by esrever on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:22:35 PM EST

    Because they still aren't missing out on any rights available to the rest of us. Maybe they don't *like* those rights, but that's just bad luck, really. Currently we _all_ have all the same rights, and that's really the point. The push for homosexual 'marriage' is always being pushed by people with the 'equal rights' canard, and it's completely bogus. We already *have* equal rights; they want *more* rights.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Let Me Count the Ways... (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by Pluto on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 08:42:42 PM EST

    esrever, dear:  

    I knew I was going to hear from someone who hasn't been paying attention, when I responded to poor porkshop in such a flip way. My bad.

    Let's think this through together:

    FACT:

    A strange legal alchemy take place in a marriage contract. Two people who have completely DIFFERENT DNA are suddenly -- in the eyes of the law -- treated as if they were DNA NEAR CLONES.

    You would be surprised at the far reaching effect this has on the entire universe!

    FACT:

    I have presented sooooo many examples of these unique legal mutations today (search my comments, please). Yet there are hundreds of married-rights that people rarely think about.

    Here's one that I have not mentioned yet, that I bet you can have fun with:

    FACT:

    Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against one another in a court of law. You be amazed how handy that little bugger can be.

    FACT:

    You can't do THAT with a will, trust, or M-corp, I'm sorry to say.

    Now go forth and turn water into wine or whatever it is you people do.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    *shrugs* (5.00 / 1) (#320)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:28:44 AM EST

    Yes? So married people, once they're married have some special rights? Guess what you too have the right to get married and obtain these rights for yourself.
    Eh, what's that you say? You don't _want_ to get married to someone of the opposite sex? Well sheesh, everybody _else_ only has the right to get married to somebody of the opposite sex, what more do you want? Oh, you want some extra rights so that you can get married to someone of the same sex? OH! I see you want extra rights. Gotcha, now I understand...

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Not that you care (5.00 / 3) (#353)
    by applespank on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 04:33:06 PM EST

    Oh, you want some extra rights so that you can get married to someone of the same sex? OH! I see you want extra rights.

    No, they want everyone to have the same right to marry someone regardless of their gender.  Right now straight people have the extra right to marry someone they love.  Gay people don't.  

    [ Parent ]

    What rot (5.00 / 1) (#374)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:13:44 PM EST

    You have just conveniently put yourself at odds with every other poster in this thread who harps on about the economic benefits. Well done. Additionally, if I am married to a woman, do I have the 'right' to marry the other three women that I have fallen in love with?

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    I see what the problem is (I think) (5.00 / 1) (#336)
    by Gallowglass on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 11:42:15 AM EST

    See, what the others are complaining about in your posts is that your definition of "equal rights" seems to be "the right to be exactly like me" rather than "the right to live your live as you wish," so I'm sure that you can see why there is some dissonance.

    Happy to be of help. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Correct. (5.00 / 1) (#372)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:03:08 PM EST

    See, what the others are complaining about in your posts is that your definition of "equal rights" seems to be "the right to be exactly like me" rather than "the right to live your live as you wish," so I'm sure that you can see why there is some dissonance.
    Indeed, you are absolutely correct. However, this 'right' does not exist. Do the Mormons in Utah have the right to marry as many people as they want? Do the members of NAMBLA have the right to marry the little boys they want? I'm sure it would make them all very happy. What about if I'm a maladjusted individual who gains pleasure from inflicting suffering on others; do I have the 'right' to live my life in this manner because that's how I wish?
    The obvious answer to all of the above is of course not. That's not how our society is built. As I stated in the original post, I'm happy to have a sensible debate about homosexual marriage in terms of societal acceptance, but definitely not in terms of 'equal rights'. As you can see from the enormous body of posts this has generated, lots of people still insist upon attempting to push the irrational, guilt-laden argument about 'equal rights'. My point is we're already there so stop insulting our intelligence; the real issue is one of societal acceptance, and that's the ground the discussion should take place on.

    Cheers :-)

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Care to explain? (5.00 / 1) (#303)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 08:43:54 PM EST

    Last time I checked, a written, witnessed will trumps any existing "rights".

    The basis of hundreds of murder mysteries, you know.


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    Grab that thinking cap... (5.00 / 1) (#311)
    by Pluto on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:37:55 PM EST

    Pork, my man, I gotta fly. I'll give you the scenario and you run it, okay?

    Your (illegal) spouse has a stroke, is incapacitated in the hospital, he's a veg.

    You got yourself a "will" though, and that along with 99 cents will get you a phone call anywhere in America. But that's it. Here's why:

    Meanwhile, the evil sister-in-law enters stage left. Let's call her Rachael.

    Rachael's already eaten your (illegal) spouse's brother's nuts for breakfast, so he's a no-show and she's the legal "next of kin".

    Guess what she can do?

  • She has you thrown out of the hospital.
  • She waives your  (illegal) spouse's opportunity for therapy.
  • She empties your/his bank accounts.
  • She forces you to sell your house and give her half.
  • She transfers your poor (illegal) spouse into a cheap shit-hole nursing home.
  • She pockets all his $$$ she could spend on his rehab and potential recovery.
  • She nixes all the expensive new meds that the docs want to try.
  • She has her MD slap a DNR (let him die) poster over his bed.
  • She has you locked out of the shit hole nursing home.
  • And, she sticks you with the hospital bill, listing your joint assets with the hospital collection agency.

    Dude, enjoy that "Will" you got! Next time, get married legally.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

  • 3 words. Power Of Attorney [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#323)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:36:04 AM EST



    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    What does any of that have to do with inheriting? (5.00 / 1) (#331)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:33:30 AM EST

    And as the other gentleman said, you can solve that problem with a little document called "power of attorney". Just make damn sure you trust the guy you give it to.


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    We are talking about Wills here, remember? (5.00 / 1) (#343)
    by Pluto on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:40:35 PM EST

    What does any of that have to do with inheriting?

    Because the next time you see him, he'll be both dead and broke.

    (And, no, it takes many more docs than more than a POA to stop this run away train.)

    Someone modbomb me to a zero for biting this troll bait, please!
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    Troll Bait. (5.00 / 1) (#349)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 02:24:22 PM EST

    Interesting attitude you have towards civil discourse. It must make you a ton of friends.


    --
    Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


    [ Parent ]
    My Apologies. (5.00 / 2) (#362)
    by Pluto on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 06:04:33 PM EST

    I was completely out of line with that remark.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]
    Um.... (5.00 / 1) (#363)
    by CENGEL3 on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 06:07:10 PM EST

    Hate to break this to you but that situation really is no different for LEGAL SPOUSES.

    A Will along with Power of Attorny gives you all the rights a legal spouse in that situation has.

    Now a Will and Power of Attorny can be contested by another interested party in court... but guess what??? The inherent rights that a legal spouse has can ALSO be contested in court (even if they have both a Will and Power of Attorny on top of that).

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#364)
    by Pluto on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 06:34:14 PM EST

    You are wrong.

    You also need a Medical POA (as well as the afore mentioned durable POA). Plus, you need a Living Trust, to keep the Will out of probate, non-contestable, and making the assets available today. You also need to make certain that all of your partner's assets have been re-registered and legally recorded (before his unfortunate stroke) in the name of the trust (including his car, checking account, real estate, safe deposit boxes, and so forth).

    Also, you need a lawyer at the nurses station to explain the whole thing and defend your right.

    Might I suggest marriage? It's a lot more powerful.

    (Nobody can really hate faggots THAT much. Can they?)
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    It it's all about money... (5.00 / 1) (#377)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:24:13 PM EST

    ...Than may I suggest that they get married instead? They have exactly the same right as anyone else to get married to a member of the opposite sex and thus protect their assets and interests as easily as you posit. The point is that there is no discrimination here, just some rights that everyone has that some people want to add to. That's great, so lets couch the debate in terms of societal acceptance, not equal rights (by the way, I credit you for your arguments at least making sensible societal points in favour of the adoption of homosexual marriage, congratulations, you are obviously one of the clearer thinkers in this thread ;-) ).

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    To tell you the truth.... (5.00 / 1) (#382)
    by Pluto on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 10:11:13 PM EST

    They have exactly the same right as anyone else to get married to a member of the opposite sex and thus protect their assets and interests

    I'm beginning to see your point. That's because I have no point to argue, really.

    I'm not gay.
    I am not a breeder.
    I think marriage is a disgrace (from a legal point of view)
    I have every single one of the documents I've mentioned in these threads.
    I am totally free of the legal/political system.

    But, I will not stipulate that it is about money.

    Just between you and me, I firmly believe it is about Christian homophobes who are convinced that gay marriage is about state-sanctioned butt-fucking -- and it makes them crazy.

    This entire long, tedious article is about that and nothing else.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    Well..the obvious one... (4.75 / 4) (#249)
    by kcidx on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:57:08 PM EST

    Married couples, as it is currently defined, have the right to *BE* married - for whatever reason they want, social, economic, or maybe just because it makes them happy.

    Gay couples do not have that right, for absolutely no reason whatsoever except he biases of certain people.

    [ Parent ]

    They also have the right to be married... (2.66 / 3) (#294)
    by esrever on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:20:39 PM EST

    ...Maybe not to the person they want, but equal rights are never about everybody doing whatever they want, they are about everybody have the same right to do the same thing. And homosexuals have that right; just not on terms that they would like.
    I'm sure there are plenty of people in Utah who would *love* to have the right to marry as many people as they want, and probably a few people in NAMBLA who would love to have the right to marry people of whatever *age* they want, but they don't.
    And neither do any of us.
    We are *equal*. Just because one special-interest group doesn't like it doesn't make it bad or wrong. How about we give in to *all* the special interest groups who would like to be able to marry whomever they want regardless of age, or current marital status, and see how many people would be happy about this...

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Bigot. (3.33 / 3) (#463)
    by kcidx on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 11:24:47 AM EST

    How about you don't change the topic in order to cover up your own bias.

    Just admit it, you don't like homosexuals, you don't want them to get married, and you don't know why other than you don't like the idea. So instead of talking about the issue at hand, you start talking about child molesters and polygamists....

    Because that is exactly what you're doing.

    [ Parent ]

    The last resort of someone with nothing to say... (none / 0) (#474)
    by esrever on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:38 AM EST

    ...Is a personal attack. So I'm a bigot? I don't want homosexuals to get married? I see. Well, my crystal ball is broken at the moment, so I'm unfortunately unable to offer any insights into *your* mindset, but hey! If you feel like actually contributing anything useful to the conversation, as opposed to imposing your worldview, insults, narrow mindset, and lack of objectivity on all the rest of us here, go ahead and talk.

    *yawns*


    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    The last resort of someone who is wrong... (none / 0) (#494)
    by kcidx on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:26:31 PM EST

    Is to go on the defensive after being called out on it.

    If you don't just dislike the idea of gay marriage because you don't like homosexuals - or at least are not comfortable with them - why don't you offer any sort of explanation?

    Personally, I didn't go so far as to compare you to a child molestor, or a polygamists, so I don't think calling you a bigot really is that bad.

    [ Parent ]

    That's silly. (5.00 / 4) (#240)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:12:28 PM EST

    Of course gays have the "right" to marry members of the opposite sex. Before integration, all races had the "right" to use facilities marked for them. If there are carnivores and herbivores, and all have the equal right to eat meat, that is not equal rights.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    another bogus corollary (3.50 / 2) (#290)
    by esrever on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:12:17 PM EST

    If there are carnivores and herbivores, and all have the equal right to eat meat, that is not equal rights.
    Of *course* it is. Everyone is allowed to eat meat. I don't have any 'special' rights that you don't. We're all equal. You might not like the terms that are imposed on us all, but we're *all* subject to the *same terms*.
    *That* is equality, folks.
    If the law said "Openly homosexual individuals may not marry members of the opposite sex" *THAT* would be discrimination.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    But the herbivores die. [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#313)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:54:37 PM EST


    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Yep. Adapt or die. That's evolution. ;-) [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#322)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:32:44 AM EST



    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately (4.50 / 2) (#253)
    by Easyas123 on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:11:00 PM EST

    The three, (equal rights, ending discrimination, and social acceptance), are all tied in together. A law cannot mandate social acceptance, only equal rights (under the law), in order to help end discrimination. Once legal discrimination is ended, the path for social acceptance opens.

    Are there instances of people with true equal rights that are as a group discriminated against with no recourse? Can you be socially accepted as an equal and still not have equal rights?

    Add to that the fact that social acceptance is what is needed in order to eliminate the "trauma" of being in a gay union or being the child of a gay union. people who fall into those categories do not feel bad of their own volition, they are made to feel badly.

    ***********************
    As the wise men fortold.
    [ Parent ]

    Depends entirely upon how you parse it... (4.66 / 3) (#266)
    by cr8dle2grave on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:37:49 PM EST

    Is it a right to marry someone of the opposite sex? Or is it a right to marry someone whom you love romantically? The issues is more than just semantic; it cuts to the core of the issue. So long as marriage is right only to marry one the opposite sex, homosexuals will not enjoy the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#287)
    by esrever on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:01:27 PM EST

    ...It _isn't_ a 'right' to marry the one you love.
    :-)
    One could argue that maybe it should be a 'right' to marry anyone you want (this _isn't_ the case currently) but then we could argue equally plausibly that we should be able to have 'marriages' comprising three, four, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, or any other ridiculous number of people because we 'want' to.
    :-)

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    ARG. (5.00 / 2) (#368)
    by fenix down on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 07:35:15 PM EST

    I've been posting this every time I see somebody playing the Rick Santorum game.

    Polygamy is not the same as gay marriage.
    Polygamy is not the same as gay marriage.
    Polygamy is not the same as gay marriage.

    The problem with polygamy:
    It's not a fair arrangement. Example: You and another guy both marry a woman. They spend all their time together and never bring you in.  Now, if it was just your wife ignoring you, you could divorce her, and it'd hurt/help the both of you equally. But since there's three of you, divorce hurts you much more than either of them. You're now essentially an indentured servant. You're in a contract in which you've given up some of your freedom, and the other sides of the contract haven't given up as much.

    No matter how you work it out, it's not going to be fair. 2 guys, 2 girls, they could have a nice polygamous relationship and cut you out. If you set it up so you can bring someone else in, then they could do the same thing until your share of the power in the marriage is insignificant.

    The problem with gay marriage:
    People don't like gay people being married.

    That is the difference between gay marriage and polygamy, thank you.

    [ Parent ]

    More faulty thinking. (5.00 / 1) (#375)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:17:07 PM EST

    How is a 'three way' divorce any different from a 'two way' divorce? Nobody said that you got be married in this group without your signature on the piece of paper; in fact, it would be ridiculous to assert that in this hypothetical polygamous relationship that others could be added to the marriage contract without your consent. On a related note though, these sorts of issues are *exactly* why we don't just let people do whatever the hell they want; we let everyone have equal rights to exactly the same things, then if we want to expand those rights, we evaluate it in terms of societal acceptance. And *THAT* is the ground that this debate should take place on, not the bogus assertion of discrimination.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Thought police! (5.00 / 2) (#370)
    by fenix down on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 07:44:10 PM EST

    Well, you probably think you have a right to say that, but clearly I never gave you the right to say that. Maybe you have some kind of right to "free speech", but if you want that just say something I agree with. It's not like I'm being unreasonable here, just agree with everything I say and you'll have your freedom of speech. It's not like there's a right to say what you think, you just have a right to say things. Things that I agree with. So shut your hole.

    [ Parent ]
    Talk about confused thinking [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#373)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:06:01 PM EST



    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Re: (1.35 / 14) (#190)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:43:36 AM EST

    And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    (Matthew 19)

    I don't see what the problem is. The definition of marriage couldn't be clearer or more simple.

    This is how marriage is defined in our "Western" society; and if you don't like it, I suggest you go immigrate to Papua New Guinea or something -- where the Christian definition of marriage is not accepted.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.

    Secular government (5.00 / 7) (#191)
    by nebbish on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:24:03 AM EST

    It is also quite clear in the US constitution that government should be secular. As the authority ultimately responsible for lawmaking, which includes the laws surrounding marriage, it seems that what is written in the bible is irrelevent.

    ---------
    Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
    [ Parent ]

    Again. (2.00 / 5) (#199)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 11:30:28 AM EST

    The concept of "marriage" in the so-called Western World is totally inseparable from Christianity.

    If that bothers you, then the government should just stop regulating marriage altogether.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by nebbish on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 11:33:12 AM EST

    Marriage is a worldwide phenomae, it has never been a solely Christian institution.

    Furthermore, I am western, atheist, and I believe in it.

    Times chage mate.

    ---------
    Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
    [ Parent ]

    I repeat again. (1.66 / 6) (#219)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:02:42 PM EST

    In the so-called Western World, "marriage" has always been a strictly Christian concept.

    If you want to hijack the meaning of the word "marriage" and change it to something it has never been -- then you shouldn't expect any sympathy from Christians as they look upon you destroying their way of life.

    Now the question for bonus points: who is the intolerant prejudiced prick in this situation?


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by zerblat on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:56:43 PM EST

    And that's why marriage didn't exist in Europe before Christianity. Niether the the Ancient Greek, the Pre-Christian Romans nor the Vikings got married. The invention of marriage was first brought to Europe by Christian monks and then spread from their monestaries.

    Western marriage is as christian as Christmas.

    [ Parent ]

    Logic is very, very useful. (2.33 / 3) (#259)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:27:00 PM EST

    You might try getting acquainted with it.

    Now look here: the fact that they have marriage in Rome, in Viking culture, in Papua New Guinea and on Mars does in no way invalidate the fact that in "the West" marriage is a totally Christian concept.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Oi! (5.00 / 1) (#301)
    by kraant on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 08:38:45 PM EST

    You're forgetting the number of non-westeners living in the West
    --
    "kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
    Never In Our Names...
    [ Parent ]
    So? (2.66 / 3) (#333)
    by tkatchev on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 10:20:31 AM EST

    Your point?

    I'm also forgetting the number of serial murders and rapists living in the West.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    not forgetful (5.00 / 1) (#359)
    by Shadowfoot on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 05:24:12 PM EST

    No you aren't. They are allowed to get married, and have christian blessings.

    [ Parent ]
    No, simple facts invalidate it (5.00 / 4) (#344)
    by itsbruce on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:47:30 PM EST

    in "the West" marriage is a totally Christian concept

    Only in the respect that Christianity was dominant in Western culture. You might as well say that the concept of "houses" in the West was totally Christian, because all the architects and builders were Christian. Your argument really is that lame.

    There are three points that invalidate your argument:

    1. The Christian church stayed out of the business of marriage until the middle ages, limiting itself to blessing unions that had already been contracted through other means.
    2. When the church did get into the business, it took as its model the Roman model, which predates Christianity.
    3. Most of Europe went back to paganism after the fall of Rome and didn't start to be rechristianised till around the beginninng of the last millenium, with some pagan holdouts lasting right up to the late middle ages. So talking about European customs as if they were Christian simply because they are old and European is deeply misinformed.

    Western marriage is nothing like a <quote>totally Christian concept</quote>. It's a partly Christian concept with much else mixed in.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    Rome was Western (5.00 / 2) (#238)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:06:47 PM EST

    So were all of the countries they invaded, which make up the bulk of "The West". All had various types of marriage before Christ was born.

    In the past ten to twenty centuries, in the so-called Western World, "religion" has always been a strictly Christian concept - at least as much as "marriage" was. But that doesn't mean that Christians invented religion, or have exclusive claim.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Uh. (2.33 / 3) (#260)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:28:23 PM EST

    Rome doesn't exist anymore. The concepts that held sway in Rome (including Roman concepts of marriage) were destroyed along with the Roman Empire, to be replaced by something we call "the Western World", more or less.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    You're wrong (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:33:17 PM EST

    So were all of the countries they invaded, which make up the bulk of "The West".

    Like Egypt? Israel/Palestine? Asia Minor? Armenia? Persia? (Well, they tried to invade it ...)

    In the past ten to twenty centuries, in the so-called Western World, "religion" has always been a strictly Christian concept - at least as much as "marriage" was.

    You mean like in Arab Spain? By the way, don't Jews count as religious or married?

    Historically, Christianity was not dominent until about the 12th or 13th century in Europe as a whole, with some regions holding out for much longer - even up to the present day. (Last time I checked Albania was mostly Muslim AND part of the Western World.)

    Try learning some history, will you?

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    You misunderstood. (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:51:22 PM EST

    Or I was unclear.

    I concede that I shouldn't have said "all" of the countries they invaded.

    Your counters of Arab Spain and Jews in fact bolster my point. Neither religion nor marriage are strictly Christian concepts at all. Note that I was claiming that Christianity had less of a claim on marriage than they do on religion in general, even in their home base of Europe. I was attempting to point out the error in claiming that Christianity's eventual dominance gave them the unique claim to marriage.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Look. (1.66 / 6) (#286)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:54:03 PM EST

    I'll spell it out for you:

    The concept of marriage in the so-called Western World is a strictly Christian concept.

    What's so difficult to understand about this phrase?

    All it means is that in the societies we call "the Western World", the idea of "marriage" historically descended from Christianity.

    It does not imply that marriage in other cultures is a Christian concept, neither does it imply that "Western Society" must necessarily worship the Christian God, neither is it a statement about which geographical areas are Christian and which ones aren't.

    Please stop grasping at straws.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Look. (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by artis on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:13:59 PM EST

    I'll spell it out for you:

    You are worng.

    What's so difficult to understand about this phrase?

    All it means is that in the societies we call "the Western World", the idea of "marriage" isn't historically descended from Christianity.

    --
    Can you know that you are omniscient?
    [ Parent ]

    Oh, really? (2.33 / 3) (#334)
    by tkatchev on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 10:21:42 AM EST

    So, tell me again, where did people go to get married just a century ago?


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    The sheriff? (5.00 / 2) (#367)
    by fenix down on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 07:13:17 PM EST

    I guess 1886 isn't just a century ago, but that's where my great-grandfather got married, according to my mom's geneology obsession. Maybe Oklahoma wasn't Christian back then. Actually, it seems that most people before 1800 or so, at least in the US, didn't really work so hard at marriage. I'm betting that unless you lived in a city, it took work to find a priest that had the time and inclination to marry you. I have ancestors from Pennsylvania that didn't get married until about 5 months before their second kid was born, back in the early 1800s.

    [ Parent ]
    You guessed wrong. (2.00 / 4) (#369)
    by tkatchev on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 07:41:21 PM EST

    I'm guessing Oklahoma wasn't part of the "Western World" back then.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Okay Quizmaster (5.00 / 1) (#383)
    by tonedevil05 on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 12:39:00 AM EST

    What is the "correct" guess?

    [ Parent ]
    the correct guess is (5.00 / 1) (#384)
    by crazycanuck on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:00:20 AM EST

    you're talking to a religious nut and you're wasting your time.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow. (3.00 / 2) (#398)
    by tkatchev on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 09:11:52 AM EST

    You'd do anything to deny the obvious, huh?

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    I'm not the one in denial here [n/t] (5.00 / 1) (#400)
    by crazycanuck on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 09:35:27 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Yes, you are. (3.00 / 2) (#402)
    by tkatchev on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 09:59:53 AM EST

    Either that, or profoundly historically illiterate.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Concept of marriage (5.00 / 1) (#440)
    by Roman on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 02:32:15 AM EST

    predates Christianity by far. This means that this concept is fluid and just like everything else is subject to change. If it did not include homosexuals before, now it can be changed to include those as far as the civil law is concerned. Church has nothing to do with civil marriage anyway. Get over it.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but listen here: (1.00 / 2) (#457)
    by tkatchev on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 07:48:39 PM EST

    "Marriage" predates Christianity.

    "Marriage" in Europe doesn't.

    Do you see, or do I need to break it down into even more bite-sized chunks?

    Now, if you want to do away with 1600 years of Western culture, then I guess it is a valid ideology. Just don't expect to be treated gently by people who don't agree with your genocidal ideas of colonialism.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Utter nonsense (none / 0) (#460)
    by itsbruce on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 08:15:31 AM EST

    "Marriage" predates Christianity. "Marriage" in Europe doesn't.

    That is a riduculous statement, entirely refuted by the historical record. The Germanic and Celtic tribes of Europe had their own marriage rites and traditions. The Germanic tradition was particularly emphatic about chastity and fidelity and had at least as much influence on the Church's eventual approach to marriage as the Roman one (hardly surprising, given that the Germanic tribes conquered Rome and most of the rest of Europe).


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    I repeat yet again. (1.00 / 1) (#461)
    by tkatchev on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 10:03:04 AM EST

    The "marriage" of the Celtic and Germanic tribes was not at all the "marriage" we commonly know here in the so-called Western World.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#464)
    by itsbruce on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 12:03:34 PM EST

    The Germanic version had significant impact, since the Germanic tribes had a crucual influence on the shape of post-Roman Europe for centuries, as I've just explained. The Church didn't suddenly impose a marriage tradition, it adapted what it found and what it found was partly based on the Germanic tradition. It does seem that you have trouble reading and thinking at the same time.

    All of which is a side issue, particulary in the US. Marriage in modern Western societies is primarily a legal matter, not a religious one. You can be married by the state without any recourse to a church. You cannot, however, be married in a church without the sanction of the state.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    sir (5.00 / 1) (#466)
    by Battle Troll on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 03:44:04 PM EST

    The Germanic version had significant impact, since the Germanic tribes had a crucual influence on the shape of post-Roman Europe for centuries, as I've just explained.

    Western Europe != Roman Empire. There was also the small matter of Greece (which at the time included most of Anatolia.) Not to mention Dacia, Libya, the Levant, and Egypt.

    The political centre of the Roman world was Constantinople from the 390s on. The Western Empire regions weren't politically important until Charlemagne used his immense military leverage to make Rome a power centre once again.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    Which invalidates my point just how? (none / 0) (#468)
    by itsbruce on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 04:14:10 PM EST

    Excuse me for interrupting your masturbation.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    sorry, I thought it was clear (2.00 / 1) (#469)
    by Battle Troll on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 04:49:12 PM EST

    [T]he Germanic tribes had a crucual influence on the shape of post-Roman Europe for centuries, as I've just explained.

    I'll spell it out for you - tribal Germanic customs are logically subordinate to Christian practices in the creation of the European institution of marriage. Christian beliefs about marriage originated in the Eastern empire at a time when Rome's unity was eroding anyhow. I cited the Eastern political centre of Rome to demonstrate that the geographical scope of Rome (and Christianity) far exceeded that of the various German peoples (who were hardly culturally unified anyhow.)

    So, German practices and customs had some effect, in Western Europe only, on Christian practices that had already been established for quite a while - around three hundred years before the Germans entered Italy or Africa in any numbers, for instance. Moreover, any German cultural effects were limited to a comparatively small, poor, isolated, and unimportant fraction of an Empire that persisted, in some form, until more than 900 years after the sack of Rome.

    If you still don't see the hole this puts in your thesis, I invite you to consider that at least 50% of the modern population of Europe lives in areas never significantly culturally influenced by tribal* Germans, but very significantly culturally influenced by the Eastern Empire, to wit, Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and Hungary. Like many people wishing to ascribe Christian culture to those damned conspiratorial Roman monks, you forget about half of the culture you were trying to describe.

    So, did Germans influence marriage customs in western Europe? Yes. Did they exert a significant effect on the Christian ideology of marriage? Demonstrably, no.

    * Finland, for instance, was under Swedish domination for a long time, but that didn't begin until 400 years after Charlemagne's foundation of the HRE. So, Finland cannot be said to have received any significant amount of primitive German cultural influences. Similarly, Hungary was greatly influenced by medieval German culture, but the Hungarians had no contact whatsoever with tribal German culture (they didn't even arrive in Europe until 800 years after the battle of the Teut. Forest.)
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    Not sure of the relevance (5.00 / 1) (#471)
    by slashcart on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 06:01:05 PM EST

    Christian beliefs about marriage originated in the Eastern empire at a time when Rome's unity was eroding anyhow.
    Most of the core Christian beliefs about marriage originated in the Judaic tradition, the Gospels, or the writings of Paul. For example, the notion of monogamouns marriages, the prohibition on divorce, the idea of man and woman being united in "one flesh," and so on.
    I cited the Eastern ... centre of Rome to demonstrate that the geographical scope of Rome (and Christianity) far exceeded that of the various German peoples
    The original poster never claimed that the Germanic influence extended throughout the Roman Empire, or throughout Christianity. He claimed that Germanic marriage customs influenced those of Europe.
    If you still don't see the hole this puts in your thesis,
    I don't see the hole it puts in his thesis: that European marriage was influenced by Germanic customs.
    So, did Germans influence marriage customs in western Europe? Yes.
    I think you just granted the point the original poster was making.
    Did they exert a significant effect on the Christian ideology of marriage? Demonstrably, no.
    The original poster never claimed this.

    ...The original poster was responding to someone who had claimed that marriage did not exist in pre-Christian Europe. And, the original poster claimed that Germanic culture significantly influenced marriage in Europe. The only way of disproving his points would be: 1) to show that marriage did not exist in pre-Christian Europe; 2) to show that Germanic tribes had no substantial influence on marriage in Europe.

    I have no idea why he was responding to the troll in the first place, but oh well.

    [ Parent ]

    a somewhat longer answer, sir. (3.00 / 1) (#472)
    by Battle Troll on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 07:16:40 PM EST

    Please do not perform 'point-by-point rebuttals' to my posts in future. I'd much rather read your argument in purum than Fox-style point-counterpoints, which erode context in the argument they propose to refute, and usually degenerate into multiple statements of disagreement about principles and definitions. I want to read your counter-thesis, not merely to be informed of your disagreement.

    In this post, tkatchev claimed that Celtic and Germanic marriage had very little to do with marriage in "the so-called Western world." In this post, tkatchev claimed that the Christian idea of marriage, not pre-Christian European tradition, was the source of the Western understanding of marriage. Thus, my post is entirely germane to the argument in this thread, because my post is on the subject of western culture originating with Roman Christianity rather than with Celtic and Germanic paganism, particularly on the issue of marriage.

    I don't see the hole it puts in his thesis: that European marriage was influenced by Germanic customs.

    No offense, but you're missing the forest for the trees. Western European marriage rites and customs are certainly influenced by Germanic rites and customs. That's not in dispute. What's at issue is whether the Western understanding of social role of marriage is primarily a Christian or a Germanic understanding. Clearly, it is the former, for the reasons outlined in my several posts: that Christianity was a precursor to what Germanic influence there was in Europe, and that there existed a demonstrable cultural continuity between Christianity in the pre- and non-Germanic parts of Europe, and those under German influence. In particular consequence of the second point, if there existed a continuous, pre-Germanic and mutually intelligible Christian understanding of marriage both within and without of Germanic Europe, the idea of it within Germanic Europe could not possibly be primarily or originally Germanic; therefore, pagan Germanic influence in the Western understanding of marriage is at best peripheral, QED.

    As for the 'troll' part. tkatchev has made a lot of people uncomfortable by insisting over and over that marriage in what was once Christendom exists in an essentially Christian understanding and context. This is hardly an idiosyncratic or 'crank' viewpoint, and it was held by most nineteenth-century Continental philosophers, including (to various degrees) Kierkegaard, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Marx, and (token Latin) Voltaire. Every serious philosopher in the twentieth century holds this view, as a direct consequence of Nietzsche's criticism of the pervasive Christian ethic in western culture. In fact, much of the work of nineteenth- and twentieth-century philosophy in the Western world has been an attack on the cultural undercurrents bequeathed to modern Western culture by the Roman church.

    It makes one look like a historical illiterate to assert that Christianity's influence upon Western thought and culture has not been the most salient trait of Western civilization. That's an important reason why, conventionally, historians draw a distinction between the early middle ages and antiquity. And that's why antiquity is generally said to end either with Constantine's division of the Empire, or with the fall of Rome.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    reply (4.50 / 2) (#473)
    by slashcart on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 09:26:09 PM EST

    Nobody is suggesting that the West wasn't heavily influenced by Christianity. Although I'm not sure that Christianity has been the "most salient" feature of Western Civilization, as you claim. Perhaps the Greco/Roman tradition, or the ideas from the Enlightenment in opposition to religion, are as important. But clearly Christianity has exerted, and continues to exert, an enormous influence on the sensibilities of Westerners. Otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this debate on whether or not homosexuality is tolerable.

    I also grant that most of the rituals bound up with marriage in the West, like monogamy and the prohibition on divorce, are derived from Christianity. Although some of the rituals clearly are not derived from Christianity, and marriage predates Christianity in Europe by a good long while.

    However, tkatchev's original points were:

    "'Marriage' predates Cristianity, 'Marriage' in Europe doesn't... In the so-called Western World, 'marriage' has always been a strictly Christian concept... if you want to do away with 1600 years of Western culture... [then] don't expect to be treated gently by people who don't agree with your genocidal ideas of colonialism. [???]"

    All of these points are frankly very silly. Especially the last point, which is baffling, since arguing that there's a Germanic influence on modern marriage is not even distantly similar to advocating genocide.

    So I was just assuming that tkatchev is a troll and doesn't mean what he says. Marriage quite clearly predated Christianity in Europe, and everyone knows it, so tkatchev's main point was clearly false. Throwing out an obviously false argument and deriding people who don't accept it as being "ignorant," is a common form of trolling. "Of course the 4th French Republic dates back to before Christ, didn't you know that? you must be ignorant, etc etc."

    [ Parent ]

    Spot on (none / 0) (#475)
    by itsbruce on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 05:22:20 AM EST

    tkatchev's comments in this thread are mind-numbingly stupid. Battle Troll's aren't but they are almost entirely irrelevant and a protracted excercise in either missing or evading the point.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    my reading: (none / 0) (#479)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 09:30:46 AM EST

    arguing that there's a Germanic influence on modern marriage is not even distantly similar to advocating genocide.

    It is colonialist, though, because it takes a local truth (that in Western Europe, marriage customs were influenced by Germanic culture) and imposes it where it doesn't fit (the rest of Europe, where Christian ideas of marriage antedate or simple exclude any pagan Germanic influence - which, as I pointed out, is limited to custom, rather than law or ideology.) I think that's what he's getting at.

    Marriage quite clearly predated Christianity in Europe, and everyone knows it, so tkatchev's main point was clearly false.

    That's a half-truth. Comparatively little of Western law and philosophy inherit from pagan law and philosophy. For example, modern law is often idealistic and only weakly positivistic. Roman law, on the other hand, was entirely positivistic (its existence and content were totally justified because they inherited legitimacy from culture-heros and tribal pre-Roman culture.)

    The Anglo-American concept of precedent reflects a tribal German heritage. On the other hand, the pervasive concept of human rights, which is a factor in all international law, arises from Christianity and not the pagan tradition. This comparison demonstrates that, while the structure of Western legal systems may be pagan, its content is nearly always Christian.

    By the way, the Enlightenment counts as Christian. Why do you think it was that Voltaire could never get out from under the Church?
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    Logic. (1.50 / 2) (#482)
    by tkatchev on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 11:54:39 AM EST

    (Footnote: it is hard to argue with somebody who seems to be completely devoid of logical thinking skills.)

    For something like, what, 1500 years now (give or take some) the tradition of "marriage" in the West has been a Christian tradition.

    Up until, roughly speaking, WWI, when two people wanted to get married, they went to their local priest. This is an undeniable fact that you simply cannot ignore.

    This is a self-contained statement of truth that you simply cannot disprove or argue against. No one of my opponents in this foot-long thread has yet even come close to making a valid arguement.

    (BTW, if you really wanted to present an interesting argument against my proposition, ask me how. Everything you've said so far amounts to a logical fallacy.)

    Also, if there is anything at all that we learned from the 20th century, it is the fact that attempting to destroy the Christian tradition of Europe amounts to genocidal colonialism. Whether this is done in the name of "ancient Germanic pagan tradition" or secular humanism or hard-line communism is irrelevant.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Stop pissing into the wind (5.00 / 2) (#476)
    by itsbruce on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 05:32:38 AM EST

    tkatchev's claim that Western marriage is strictly Christian is a) innacurate and b) no justification for legal restrictions on marriage. I refer you to my earlier point, which you neglected to address at all: marriage in the U.S. is in the first instance a state-sanctioned contract bestowing specific legal and financial privileges and only secondarily a religious event if you choose to make it so. You can get married without a church but you cannot legally get married without state sanction. Arguing that Christian dogma (and this bigotry is far from being universally accepted amongst all Christians) can be used to arbitrarily restrict access to this contract is nonsense, particularly in a state whose legal system is explicitly secular.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    dear bruce (none / 0) (#478)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 09:21:57 AM EST

    Arguing that Christian dogma (and this bigotry is far from being universally accepted amongst all Christians) can be used to arbitrarily restrict access to this contract is nonsense, particularly in a state whose legal system is explicitly secular.

    That wasn't what anyone is saying, but thanks for sharing why you're so upset.

    tkatchev's point is not about law but about ideas. He's stated, correctly, that the Western understanding of marriage is entirely rooted in Christianity. All your 'Germanic tribes' aside, you've said nothing against the pervasiveness of Christian epistemology and ontology in the Western imagination and weltanschauung.

    Now, perhaps we moderns wish to uproot this understanding and rewrite our laws and our ideology - that is our right. But whether we change the law or not, we're not changing Christian ontology, or by extension the Christian ideas about the the purposes of law. Can you not see that social contract theory, for instance, is entirely dependent for its logical and spiritual framework upon a Christian understanding of the world? Haven't you ever wondered why humanism has never developed outside the Western world? Western law, rights, obligations, economics, science, and even the Enlightenment inherit directly from the Christian system of values, as I am about the 1,000,000-th person to point out.

    So, long story short, gay marriage is an idea that draws its legitimacy from one field of Western thought (humanism) in opposition to that field's parent (Christian philosophy.) People in the West whose allegiances are generally to the first of these, today the elite in most governments, the universities, and the liberal churches, thus favour gay marriage. People whose allegiances are to the second are opposed. It's not a matter of simple bigotry, it's a deep philosophical rift.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    Dear Troll (none / 0) (#485)
    by itsbruce on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 01:07:11 PM EST

    Can you not see that social contract theory, for instance, is entirely dependent for its logical and spiritual framework upon a Christian understanding of the world? Haven't you ever wondered why humanism has never developed outside the Western world? Western law, rights, obligations, economics, science, and even the Enlightenment inherit directly from the Christian system of values, as I am about the 1,000,000-th person to point out.

    So there are a million small-minded idiots in the world. This is not news. Many would argue that the Enlightenment progressed as the influence of the Christian churches lessened and as Christianity weakened (and many US clergymen, railing against "secular humanism" would agree). To designate the Enlightenment a Christian achievement is as audacious as it is specious. The system that gave us the Crusades and the Inquisition and which hounded Gallileo, Copernicus and Keppler can hardly claim to have been the most benevolent belief system in history. To be sure, the Protestant Reformation played a significant role in speeding the Enlightenment but this was mostly because if its emphasis on personal conscience and personal responsibility, which denied the church its previous tyranny over philosophy and thought.

    The idea that the relatively equitable and free societies could only have developed from Christianity and that this was an inevitable progression is infantile. Its adherents are the philosophical equivalent of those scientific illiterates who reject Relativity and Quantum Physics because it doesn't match their personal experience of the world, unaware that the local conditions in their tiny enviroment are not typical of those in the larger universe. The person who proposes the syllogism "I live in an enlightened society. This society has a Christian history. Therefor enlightenment is Christian" is guilty of the same illogic.

    You peddle a distorted and highly partial view of social progress, one which ignores or disdains the contributions of the Arab/Islamic and Hindu tradtions (which were not limited to the fields of science, medicine and mathematics). For most of the parallel history of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, the Christian societies were the easily the poorest, most ignorant and most savage. The philosophy that had the planners of Baghdad set aside space for churches and synagogues was one that contributed rather more to posterity than that of their Christian counterparts (don't forget that Baghdad gave refuge to Plato's Academy when it had to flee the intolerance of a Christian Emperor, nor that the Sultan's court was at the centre of a surge of scientific/philosophical enquiry and university building while most of the monks in Charlemagne's court were not only illiterate but couln't even speak Latin).

    To grant equal rights to the members of our society is in the tradition of the Liberal Enlightenment which created our modern legal system. If the denial of those rights is truly a Christian principal then this simply re-emphasises the importance of keeping the law secular and separate.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    from _Schopenhauer as Educator_ (none / 0) (#486)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 02:18:32 PM EST

    (By the way, this particular Nietzsche essay just happens to be the one I am reading today, but this idea permeates his thinking and is the explict grounds for his anti-Christian reaction.)

    "...no one who considers the influence victorious Christianity had on the morality of the ancient world can overlook the reaction of declining Christianity upon our own time. Through the exaltedness of its ideal, Christianity excelled the moral systems of antiquity and the naturalism that resided in them to such a degree that this naturalism came to excite apathy and disgust; but later on, when these better and higher ideals, though now known, proved unattainable [because contradicting human nature and thus unreal ideals, in his opinion - BT] it was no longer possible to to return to what was good and high in antique virtue, however much one might want to. It is in this oscillation between Christianity and antiquity...that modern man live and does not live very happily."
    Re: the Enlightenment. The concepts of knowable reasonable objective truth and the transcendent value of the individual, and their consequence, humanism and hence the Enlightenment, are a fortspinnung of ideas originating with Christianity. This is exactly what Nietzsche was referring ("exaltedness of its ideal") in the above quote. If you doubt that ideas can spark institutional backlash within the institution in which they originated (persecution of Galileo,) then you need to think harder about the social history of science, because this is a salient trait of paradigm shift in the natural sciences. Science isn't any less science because one scientist applies scientific philosophy differently than his predecessor, and the Christian ideal isn't any less Christian in the hands of Voltaire than of the pope.

    I really wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth and rating my comments in thread, by the way. And please don't call me I'm a stupid bigot. For one thing, I'm not, and for another, it makes you look like one. Is this how you treat everyone who presumes to disagree with your lordship?
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    You haven't advanced one coherent argument (none / 0) (#487)
    by itsbruce on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 03:22:37 PM EST

    With regard to the topic in hand. You've proven adept at regurgitating chunks of your library but not to any purpose. If you have any argument to defend the idea that a segment of the population should be arbitrarily denied the legal and financial protection that much of the rest of society relies upon, you have been very reluctant to spell it out. You seem to be quite unaware that there is more to this issue than your sophomoric meanderings. tkatchev may be have a smaller vocabulary but he is refreshingly direct in comparison.


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    you idiot (3.00 / 2) (#488)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 04:29:58 PM EST

    If you have any argument to defend the idea that a segment of the population should be arbitrarily denied the legal and financial protection that much of the rest of society relies upon, you have been very reluctant to spell it out.

    I am not interested in making a pragmatic case against legal gay marriage, you insufferable prick. That's the third time now you've put words in my mouth.

    I favour legal gay marriage at the present time. My arguments have been entirely about the provenance of marriage in Western society. It's possible to recognize that marriage inherits its ideology from Christianity without being opposed to gay marriage. And I do.

    Learn how to read, you angry little boy. I'm done with you.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    excellent post (none / 0) (#489)
    by slashcart on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 07:11:02 PM EST

    tkatchev's claim that Western marriage is strictly Christian is a) innacurate and b) no justification for legal restrictions on marriage. I refer you to my earlier point, which you neglected to address at all: marriage in the U.S. is in the first instance a state-sanctioned contract bestowing specific legal and financial privileges and only secondarily a religious event if you choose to make it so. You can get married without a church but you cannot legally get married without state sanction. Arguing that Christian dogma (and this bigotry is far from being universally accepted amongst all Christians) can be used to arbitrarily restrict access to this contract is nonsense, particularly in a state whose legal system is explicitly secular.
    This was an excellent post: articulate, concise, and compelling. It was perhaps the only intelligent thing I've ever read or heard on this issue. It's regrettable that it's buried in a mountain of trolls.

    [ Parent ]
    and beside the point (none / 0) (#490)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 09:07:06 PM EST

    Look, I'm in favour of gay marriage, ok? This has ceased to be a debate over its rights and wrongs and become one over the provenance of marriage.

    I'm sorry that it offends you so much that your pet thesis ('marriage in the Western world is not understood in an essentially Christian way') is intellectually bankrupt. But it is.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    Not sure how this is relevant (none / 0) (#470)
    by slashcart on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 05:50:37 PM EST

    Western Europe != Roman Empire.
    The original poster did not claim that Western Europe == Roman Empire.
    Not to mention Dacia, Libya, the Levant, and Egypt.
    Libya and Egypt are not a part of Europe. The original poster claimed that Germanic tribes had a significant influence on post-Roman Europe.
    The political centre of the Roman world was Constantinople from the 390s on.
    If by "Roman world" you mean the Eastern Roman Empire, then I'll grant this.

    ...I'm not sure how this is relevant to determining whether Germanic tribes had a significant impact on marriage in post-Roman Europe. Suppose I grant every one of your premises: Western Europe != Roman Empire, Libya and Egypt exist and were part of the Roman Empire, and Constantinople was the center of the Eastern Roman (ie Byzantine) empire. How do these three things show that Germanic tribes didn't exert an influence on marriage in Europe?

    [ Parent ]

    You act as if (5.00 / 2) (#315)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 10:12:38 PM EST

    disagreeing is the same as not understanding. The phrase is perfectly easy to understand, but not true except in the most superficial and simpleminded way. I'll just resort to your language, and end it here:

    You're wrong because I say so.

    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    I think I understand... (5.00 / 1) (#390)
    by Squeegee on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 04:02:38 AM EST

    You're saying the concept of "Christian" marriage in the Western World is historically descended from Christianity. Right?

    [ Parent ]
    ...but wait, there is more.. (5.00 / 1) (#391)
    by Squeegee on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:13 AM EST

    Or are you saying that the legal foundations on which "marriage" rests (i.e. ownership, inheritance, etc.) is derived from Christian marriage tranditions?

    [ Parent ]
    symantics (5.00 / 2) (#388)
    by YelM3 on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 02:57:47 AM EST

    So Christians own the word "marriage" and no one else (including the law) can use it without their permission? Look, the Christian concept of marriage is based on Christian concepts, but the concept of marriage as defined in the United States Constitution is merely based upon the Christian idea. When it was written into law in this country (and most others) it ceased to be a religious issue and became an issue for the entire population to agree upon. And now times are changing in a big way. Now, if Christians can't get that into their head I would suggest they need to find another country. The United States is not a Christian country, in fact it is explicitly a secular country. Your priest never told you?

    [ Parent ]
    I apologize for feeding the troll... (5.00 / 1) (#441)
    by magney on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 04:00:44 AM EST

    but you can't just keep saying "yes it is" every time someone says "no it isn't" and expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Do I look like I speak for my employer?
    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I can. (1.25 / 4) (#456)
    by tkatchev on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 07:46:13 PM EST

    It's hard to argue with a brick wall.

    Learn to respond with something other than a skinnerian response before trying to engage in "discussion", whatever that might mean.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    I suppose I walked into that one. (none / 0) (#459)
    by magney on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 04:51:19 AM EST

    Just call me John Cleese. "Is this the right place for an argument?"

    Do I look like I speak for my employer?
    [ Parent ]

    what about divorce? (5.00 / 3) (#248)
    by loudici on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 03:46:09 PM EST

    you might notice that "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." pretty clearly means that there is no divorce, if we, as you seem to propose, use the bible as a legal reference. yet even ireland has agreed to make divorce legal.

    so. what gives?
    gnothi seauton
    [ Parent ]

    What gives? (2.33 / 3) (#263)
    by tkatchev on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:31:30 PM EST

    Western Society is what gives.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    America shouldn't allow same sex unions (1.45 / 22) (#192)
    by I Hate Eurotrash on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:40:24 AM EST

    or it will quickly end up a godless communist homosexual cesspit like Europe where the fags outnumber the straights 2:1. This is why Europe is withering away in decline whilst America is proud, strong and fertile.

    ---
    Just how gay are Europeans? This gay.

    NORAD chirps (2.50 / 4) (#193)
    by banffbug on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:49:25 AM EST

    Every day for the past month at least a page of articles about 'same sex' marriages appears in the daily paper. Yesterday the canadian parlament voted 137-132 (with 30 not in attendance) against defining marriage to include gay couples. Today, half the first section is gay. Whatsmore, the reading is nausiating, droning on about 'the same sex controvercy' as if it speaks for itself, going nowhere.

    Prepare to be eaten by this awful meme. It'll suck the life right out of you and spit it square between your shoulder blades, where you can't quite reach it.

    you're confused (4.50 / 2) (#195)
    by crazycanuck on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 10:38:27 AM EST

    the canadian parliament voted against a motion of the Alliance that stated marriage is heterosexual only.

    in other words they were voting for gay marriage.

    [ Parent ]

    and to think I voted for the alliance (5.00 / 1) (#332)
    by banffbug on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 09:06:05 AM EST

    next election it might as well be the green party. thx for clearing that up.

    [ Parent ]
    It was a great week for Canada (5.00 / 2) (#412)
    by ab762 on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:21:02 PM EST

    The Alliance motion to harden the traditional definition of marriage failed, and Bill C-250 to protect groups distinguished by sexual orientation from "hate speech" passed. Two victories for equal rights.

    BTW, this change means that "I hate straights" is just as outlawed as "I hate gays" -- what part of equal did you miss :-)


    Some dumb Canadian
    [ Parent ]
    Not quite (5.00 / 1) (#408)
    by pythagoras on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 11:41:23 AM EST

    First, the vote was taken for a motion introduced by one of the opposition parties.  The motion was in favour of restricting the definition to heterosexual couples and the motion was defeated.

    Second, it was for a "motion" not a Bill.  IOW, even if it had passed, it was of no real significance.

    Third, even if it had been a Bill *and* it had passed, it was of no real significance.  The Supreme Court of Canada has already held that restricting the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of Charter Rights.  The House of Commons can pass as many laws as it wants to say that marriage is only for heterosexual couples but the Supreme Court has already ruled in that area and their ruling trumps any House of Commons legislation.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's more than financial (4.57 / 14) (#196)
    by xrayspx on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 10:48:47 AM EST

    I know gay couples who have been together for over a decade. They share houses, basically, if they were straight, it would be commonlaw-marriage.

    Now, let's say Bob gets hit by a green bus. If the doctor is a dick, or Bob's family doesn't like him, Bob's partner Joe will not be permitted to see him in the emergency room. Bob's family can also decide to try and get the house, which they very well may do.

    It's more than just tax benefits or insurance. The little things like hospital visitation that many people just take for granted are probably more important. "Sorry Joe, you can't see the person you've woken up next to every day for the last 12 years, because you're not 'related'".

    That's the kind of thing that makes anti-civil-union types seem really quite mean to me. Probably they just don't think of it, they just want to preserve the definition of Marriage.


    "I see one maggot, it all gets thrown away" -- My Wife
    Solution (3.33 / 3) (#202)
    by fluxrad on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 11:48:43 AM EST

    The solution to the above is not to make gay marriage legal, but to amend the current will/living-will laws.

    If I put "Tom" on my living will as the individual who is basically in charge of my estate, then damnit, Tom should be that guy. Hospital visits, etc. would be a given. Personally, I think this has very little to do with whether or not I take it in the poop-chute.

    Although, as a side note, I am against gay marriage for the simple reason that the government recognizes marriage as a contractual obligation between the man, the woman, and the state. The state recognizes that the man and woman will shortly be making babies and (thereby) contributing to the welfare of the state by, y'know, populating it. At least, this is the way it's supposed to work, since there are exceptions to every rule, such as couples that get married but never procreate. Put simply, the state rewards couples who set up a house, home, and environment in which to create and raise children. However in my limited understanding of biochemistry and sexual anatomy, a pair of men or women cannot make kids because of a fundamental lack of equipment. The state currently does not recognize a marriage between these individuals because their marriage has no inherent value to the state.

    An argument will most certainly be made for adoption by gay couples, however I don't think that's a marital issue since adoption has nothing to do with the creation of life, and single parents are rewarded just the same as couples for actually raising a child. The institute of marriage is recognized and rewarded by the state because of the inherent agreement to both procreate and raise a child.

    If the government were to recognize gay marriage, then they would be conceding two things. First, that the concept of marriage has increased beyond the scope of cohabitation for the sake of procreation. And secondly, that the best interests of the state are no longer implicitly served by marriage. That is to say, the state no longer dreives a benefit from marriage that is inherent to that union, i.e. - procreation for the sake of population. I, for one, hope the state never concedes this ground as it will, essentially, push government farther into the realm of morality. I, for one, don't want that to happen.

    --
    "It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
    -David Hume
    [ Parent ]
    Is that true for every case? (5.00 / 6) (#236)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:56:49 PM EST

    The solution to the above is not to make gay marriage legal, but to amend the current will/living-will laws.

    There are thousands of individual benefits accorded to married couples that would not be available to a gay couple. Is the word "marriage" so sacred that each of the individual rules should be changed, when it would be much easier to just change the legal requirements for marriage?

    The state recognizes that the man and woman will shortly be making babies and (thereby) contributing to the welfare of the state by, y'know, populating it.

    No. The "making" of babies is not the benefit provided by marriage. Babies are made outside of marriage all the time, and it is not generally viewed as a good thing.

    Put simply, the state rewards couples who set up a house,

    No problem for gays.

    home,

    Again, no problem.

    and environment

    No problem here, either.

    in which to create

    OK, this is harder for gays. But there are options open to them (and impotent straight couples), such as sperm/egg donors and surrogate parents.

    and raise children.

    AH-HA! HERE is why the state provides marriage benefits. The benefits are NOT for procreating, or mothers who give up their children for adoption would get them. There is nothing that would prevent gays from RAISING children. That is the issue, and the various marriage benefits would help families with gay parents raise their children better. That is a benefit to the state.

    An argument will most certainly be made for adoption by gay couples, however I don't think that's a marital issue since adoption has nothing to do with the creation of life, and single parents are rewarded just the same as couples for actually raising a child. The institute of marriage is recognized and rewarded by the state because of the inherent agreement to both procreate and raise a child.

    This is not logical. Look at the options:
    1) Married without children: Marriage benefits, no child benefits
    2) Married with children (regardless of adoption): Marriage benefits, child benefits
    3) Unmarried, procreated, kept children: No marriage benefits, child benefits
    4) Unmarried, procreated, gave up children: No benefits
    5) Unmarried, adopted children: No marriage benefits, child benefits
    6) Unmarried, no children: No benefits

    Adoption status has no bearing on state benefits. Marriage and childrearing do.

    ...I, for one, hope the state never concedes this ground as it will, essentially, push government farther into the realm of morality. I, for one, don't want that to happen.

    I disagree. I think it will move government away from artificial morality imposed by specific religious dogma, and towards practical morality of providing benefits to loving homes for children.
    For the record, I am unmarried, childless, and straight.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Addendum to "For the record" (5.00 / 1) (#276)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:30:34 PM EST

    and adopted.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Continuing (5.00 / 1) (#280)
    by fluxrad on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:05:59 PM EST

    Funny, my sister told me I was adopted.

    --
    "It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
    -David Hume
    [ Parent ]
    Child rearing risks (2.66 / 3) (#297)
    by esrever on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:42:51 PM EST

    AH-HA! HERE is why the state provides marriage benefits. The benefits are NOT for procreating, or mothers who give up their children for adoption would get them. There is nothing that would prevent gays from RAISING children. That is the issue, and the various marriage benefits would help families with gay parents raise their children better. That is a benefit to the state.
    Indeed. However, this then becomes the question: Which is more beneficial to the state *and* to the children; to be raised by a heterosexual couple, or to be raised by a homosexual couple?
    There is an _enormous_ body of evidence that points to the 'nuclear' family generating more well-adjusted, better performing, happier children than any other social model. Governments have been tracking this sort of thing for fifty years (usually in the context of marriage breakup). I don't have the energy to google for all this (additionally lots of these studies never get published on the web), but here is a link to get you started (note that most of these studies focus on the lack of daily male parental input into a child's life):
    http://www.maxim.org.nz/main_pages/about_page/about_nzintrouble.html

    Look for similar statistics to this in 40 years time if homosexual marriage and child-rearing becomes prolific. Do *you* want to be responsible for the outcomes of what would amount to a massive social experiment on the lives of countless children, especially when there is already so much indicative evidence highlighting the risks? And lets not even go into the fact that almost 100% of the abuse that has come to light recently from the Catholic church was both homosexual and paedophilic in nature...

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Not relevant (5.00 / 1) (#312)
    by Happy Monkey on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:53:37 PM EST

    Everyone is assumed to be capable of rearing children, until they individually prove themselves incapable. A theoretical bogeyman of "15% of children of gay parents may be 10% less well adjusted" is not a valid basis for prohibiting their marriage. Anyway, gays always have and always will raise children. The question is whether married gays are better than single gays at raising children. I suspect so.
    ___
    Length 17, Width 3
    [ Parent ]
    Not about the parents' skill (3.66 / 3) (#327)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 03:42:43 AM EST

    It's not about the parents' skill; it's about the environment and how children perceive their world. And there is no 'theoretical' problem, the point is there are many, many, many government (and other) sponsored studies spanning decades that indicate the best possible result for a child is when they are being raised in a home with one male parental unit and one female parental unit.
    This is not about religion, this is about social science. I'm 100% sure just like you that there are probably plenty of perfectly capable, loving homosexual couples around, but the science says that for reasons beyond their control that there is a much higher chance the children will become maladjusted in society. I wish that wasn't the case also, because then the problems that single-parent families wouldn't be nearly so bad either, and everyone would win...

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    interpretation (5.00 / 2) (#330)
    by iawia on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 05:59:00 AM EST

    Erm, I think you're misinterpreting those many studies you are talking about. There are indeed many studies that provide data supporting that children raised in complete, happy families are in all kinds of ways better off than children from families that are in some way 'broken'. (Because one of the parents died or a divorce.)

    This is not surprising.

    This data has, of course, no meaning when considering the raising of children in a family of a different composition (ie, gay married couples).

    Further more, if single-parent families are considered suitable, despite the research you mention, it would be very strange indeed if same-sex partners were not allowed to raise children.

    [ Parent ]

    other studies (5.00 / 1) (#356)
    by Shadowfoot on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 05:06:47 PM EST

    I think there are studies showing that children raised by gays and/or lesbians are better adjusted than those raised in other homes.

    [ Parent ]
    Reliable information source (5.00 / 1) (#357)
    by Shadowfoot on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 05:10:38 PM EST

    The Maxim institute is not recommended as a reliable source of information for this subject.

    [ Parent ]
    Look more carefully next time... (5.00 / 1) (#371)
    by esrever on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 07:55:56 PM EST

    It is maxim.org.nz; this is a public-policy independent think-tank in New Zealand.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Look more carefully next time... (none / 0) (#491)
    by Shadowfoot on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:39:06 AM EST

    Thank you for your comment. I live in New Zealand. Maxim is a conservative Christian organisation. They seek greater police powers in relation to many day to day activities. They seek greater social control on individuals. They are concerned about the increasing numbers of non-christian religions and immigrants to NZ. They are opposed to homosexuality and anything else they see as anti-"family". They are NOT a public-policy independent think-tank. As I said, they are not a reliable source of information.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#501)
    by esrever on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 03:39:50 AM EST

    1. They develop opinions on public policy by soliciting opinion from experts in the field
    2. They are unassociated with any political party
    This makes them an independent, public policy think tank; unless your own prejudices preclude you from imagining a Christian organisation that wants to better society.

    Also, regardless of anything else, your opinion of the organisation doesn't change the accuracy of the numbers they present.

    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]

    Nuclear family is BEST??!! (4.50 / 2) (#379)
    by univgeek on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:40:45 PM EST

    You'd find a huge number of studies from India claiming that nuclear families, as opposed to joint families, actually reduce the 'quality' of children raised. And it's probably true too.

    Think about that for a second.

    Arguing with an Electrical Engineer is liking wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it!
    [ Parent ]

    India != USA [nt] (3.00 / 2) (#437)
    by esrever on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 10:07:28 PM EST



    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Parenting abilities (3.00 / 1) (#453)
    by kelar on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 08:33:02 AM EST

    Just because someone is gay, straight, or whatever has absolutely no bearing on how good of a parent they can be. I've known several from both camps, and quite frankly, there's not much of a difference.

    Parenting ability is a completely individual thing, saying that it is influenced by what the sex of the person is you're sharing a bed with is ludicrous.

    [ Parent ]

    Arguments quickly becoming insignificant... (4.83 / 6) (#220)
    by ibsulon on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:04:59 PM EST

    Hospitals now, by and large, recognize the domestic partner. This has been a large victory in the last 2-3 years.

    As gay partners are made more aware of the inheritance implications, they are becoming more wise in the contracts they sign. The trick is to think of these things before something happens. Married hetero couples don't have to do this.

    The argument again goes back to economic and social arguments.

    (Full disclosure: I am a gay man in support of equal marriage.)

    [ Parent ]

    Why a green bus? (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#403)
    by debillitatus on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 10:31:49 AM EST


    Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
    [ Parent ]

    Where the actual problem is... (2.75 / 4) (#197)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 11:00:53 AM EST

    The problem of allowing "gay marriage" or any other "uncommon form" is spawned from the traditional intrication of western legal bases and the christian church.
    As the author alludes, the state should have no say to what is right or wrong for its citizens as long as no other citizen is harmed and should therefore protect and provide for them equally. To acheive that, a major effort to "clean up" the legislation from religious definitions should be undertaken and not just fragmentary laws on each specific case. On the current issue and many more similar about to surface later on should the gay supporters succeed, it would be enough to define a "Civil Union" and substitute the concept of marriage with this one. Marriage is of religious value, the concept of "family core" is a social/civil one wether we are talking about a christian community or an isolated tribe in central africa.
    However, there remains a crucial point that the author missed or intentionally avoided as a point of major flaming just waiting to happen: the one of children.Although I am all for abolishing religious influence from legislation, gay activists will find me completely opposed to such a proposition. The reason is that this has nothing to do with religion but with proper care for a child under a sociological and psychological point of view. Gay people should realise that while they have the right to do as they please in matters of sexual preferencies, their choice is not exactly the "intended use" from a biological point of view. In our society the "family core" plays a major role in the education (with the broader meaning of the word) of children. But a gay family core, both male and female, lacks the figure of a proper father AND (even more importantly) mother.IMHO, laws should always take into account  the current society they are designed to be applied to. If a single but "proper" mother still faces huge problems in raising her child both from a legal but mostly from a social point of view,how can anyone expect a child to grow in serenity and equal opportunities within a gay family core? Perhaps in 30 years it will be plausible but right  now such a law would charge a child with incessant finger-pointing and social isolation. So, gay activists think twice before you answer: "you want that child under your protection to help him grow at the best possible environment you can provide, or just to boost your ego and hold him as a token proof of your civil rights?"      

    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    I agree ... (4.66 / 3) (#203)
    by Easyas123 on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 11:58:19 AM EST

    with most of your post, but I have to point out that "mother figure" and "family core" seem to assume the actual presence of a biological mother in the former term and a male/female "family group in the latter.
    There are plenty of examples of people coming out of standard (ie, not gay) families who lack either term. Psychologically, the important thing is love and support from whoever is caring for the child. I would much rather a child be raised in a loving gay household rather than a fragmented straight one.

    Which is wheree we come back together again. I would also rather no one, gay or straight attempt to procure a child for display reasons.

    ***********************
    As the wise men fortold.
    [ Parent ]

    indeed (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:42:45 PM EST

    The problem is not due to a "biological" necessity of both male and female figures but to social reasons. The gay couple might love that kid from the deepest of their hearts and I have no reason to doubt it. My issue is that the kid will face inumerous troubles in the society regardless of his gay parents love and devotion.
    That's why I do not exclude the plausibility of allowing such arrangements in the future, since society tends to progressively liberate itself from such prejudices. Therefore, before a law allows gay  couples to adopt children, a long path of governmental policies is required to face prejudice.  And unfortunatelly this takes a lot more effort and time than enforcing a mere law.
    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (4.66 / 3) (#216)
    by Easyas123 on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:58:48 PM EST

    that a law is needed, but i only see it as being one law. let gays adopt children. Simple. The one thing that combats predudice quicker than any other is eliminating the basis for the predudice. if you give people equal footing, where they end up is up to them.

    Besides why should people who are going to love a child be punished/left behind while the government attempts to correct/adjust the attitudes of others?

    Not to place any flame bait, but I think a child with gay parents is lower on the totem pole of teasing than other children. If a child is of a racial minority, handicapped (physically or mentally), poor, or even just unplasant to look at, these faults, (in other childrens eyes), will be revealed faster than someone having gay parents.

    ***********************
    As the wise men fortold.
    [ Parent ]

    That's an old argument . . . (5.00 / 3) (#335)
    by Gallowglass on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 11:22:06 AM EST

    . . . and it's still not valid. You are arguing that the child will "face innumerous troubles in the society." I read that as saying that because there are elements in society that will disapprove of this practice, that it should be avoided.

    Pardon me while I flash back to the 60's when multi-racial marriages were condemned with such arguments as, "I don't have anything against blacks, but look how much trouble their children will have." The implication is that they should shun this behaviour not because it is immoral, not because it is unethical, not because it is inherently wrong or misguided, but because some people will disapprove and trouble will result.

    (Jesus wept!)

    Look, do you really think this is a winning strategy? Do you really think that you should base your behaviour to avoid censure from people who hold different moral views from you? If so, my general attitude is to say, "Suck it up sunshine! Get some backbone! LIve your life according to your moral code, not that of some fool who thinks his morality should trump yours."

    [ Parent ]

    the difference is... (3.50 / 2) (#425)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 03:46:51 PM EST

    that it won't be those deciding to receive the major flak but the kid. I do not decide what to do and what not according to "what people say" but I'd rather leave thirds out of it
    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    No difference (none / 0) (#454)
    by thejeff on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 11:28:27 AM EST

    The same argument would apply to children of interracial marraiges in the 60s, or even, to a lesser extent, today. Therefore such marraiges should be forbidden?

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#462)
    by Easyas123 on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 10:22:21 AM EST

    we should keep the physically hanicapped at home too.
    Do not forget the boys that do not run "quite right"
    And the ugly, those whos parents are divorced, the too poor, too rich, those without the "in" sneakers, the smelly, the socially inept, and those who speak english as a second language.

    OR we could just keep kids from ragging on the others like that and theach the kids of gay parents that they are ok.

    Somehow the second solution seems better.

    ***********************
    As the wise men fortold.
    [ Parent ]

    hrmmn... wait... (5.00 / 5) (#218)
    by ibsulon on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:00:46 PM EST

    So let me see here.

      An foster home with 5-8 children with people doing the job for income is superior to two loving parents.
      An abusive mother and father is superior to two loving parents.

    Guess what? The "nuclear family" is far from the only model that has been used. Evolutionarily, it might be argued that the communal female model was once more prevalent. (The fathers went to hunt, were fairly uninvolved, while the mothers in the tribe together raised the children...) - Or Islam? One man, up to four wives... Judiasm had its share of polygamy as well.

    "IMHO, laws should always take into account  the current society they are designed to be applied to."

    The current society is largely single-parent. Is this suddenly the prefeered model? Of course not.

    "Perhaps in 30 years it will be plausible but right now such a law would charge a child with incessant finger-pointing and social isolation."

    Except that there are already gay families around. (Remember, even as of a decade ago we were forcing gays and lesbians far enough into the closet to where they were starting families because they were told they must. Luckily, the trend is decreasing.) Each family has its own problems, but the ones I've heard from consider themselves a family, and some of the children are even proud to be in such a family.


    [ Parent ]

    Children? (5.00 / 3) (#283)
    by mindstrm on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:49:53 PM EST

    I see so many children with one parent, no parents, shitty parents, divorced parents, a new daddy or mommy every year...

    As far as I am concerned, if two adults want to become the legal guardians of a child, and raise that child.. where is the problem? In what possible way is that a BAD thing?

    You talk about a family core.. yet a good chunk of the people I went to school came from dysfunciontal homes by that definition.. they had no "core".  Some were definately more grown up than their own parents.

    Who are you to say that two gay men can't raise a child? Do they listen to the kid? Provide for it? Love it? Protect it?

    Do you know what it takes to adopt a child? The requirements are quite a bit harder than just having one on your own, you know... you are unter intense scrutiny for several years, to make sure you were good parents. If you in any way breach that, your adopted child can be taken away.

    If "preserving the family core" is the reason gays cannot adopt children.. then I guess we need to take children away from single parents, those who have nannies raise their children, and anything else.. as they are not preserving core values.

    [ Parent ]

    A further beef. (4.50 / 2) (#284)
    by mindstrm on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 06:52:56 PM EST

    The idea that these couples want to adopt children for "display reasons" is absurd. Do normal couples who can't have children do this? Why do you feel gays would be more likely to do it?


    [ Parent ]
    Legislating is EXACTLY the way to kill the stigma (4.22 / 9) (#252)
    by gte910h on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:09:33 PM EST

    "While economic equality can be so achieved (perhaps debatable given the civil rights record), social acceptance simply can not be legislated"

    I could not disagree more. Its been shown time and time again that what you do effects what you think much more strongly than the other way around. Without desegregation, many psychologists posit that rasicm will have not seen the dramatic drop it has over the last 50 years.

    Precisely by legislating that gays and lesbians can marry will the social stigma drain away and die.

    Links:
    The "Would I Lie to You?" section of http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/cogdiss.cfm

    http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/race/far-03.htm

    Rinse, repeat... (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by hummassa on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:24:44 PM EST

    Marriage should be legally defined (not only in the US, but here in Brasil, too) as:
    * a group of people who have some marital status priviledges and obligations with each other and the State.
    Simple, isn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    rights-violations (3.25 / 4) (#272)
    by dh003i on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 05:01:29 PM EST

    I won't talk about public property here, because all "public" property (in reality, "owned" by the government) is paid for by theft via taxes, and is hence illegitmate.

    However, forcing desegregation in private property is a violation of property rights. If I have a house, I should be allowed to have any ass-backwards, racist, idiotic rules I want for who I let in it, and where I let them stay in the house. Denying me that amounts to violating my right in the property that I rightfully own and have paid for. There's no reason why the same principle shouldn't apply to business. If business' use ass-backwards rules, they will suffer economically (if you decide never to hire blacks, you've given your competition an edge, because they have a larger pool to select from than you do; if you don't allow blacks in your store, you lose money).

    Regarding gay marriage, the law should not recognize marriage. It should recognize a legal union between two or more people which has certain (beneficial) tax and credit implications. Whether or not churches should officially acknowledge gay or polygamous marriages is up to them; denying them the right to choose violates their property rights.

    No-one has the right to be liked, approved of, or condoned by anyone else. Gays don't have the right to be approved of by Church Y, nor do they have the right to be approved of by individual Z. Forcing others to accept them violates their own natural property rights. Gays, and everyone else, however, do have the absolute right to their own property in their person and in their rightfully acquired physical things. Regarding homosexuals, this means that bigot X doesn't have the right to beat up a homosexual, nor does the Church have the right to burn down a homosexual's house, nor does the state have the right to tax a homosexual. However, everyone has the right to choose whether or not they will approve of homosexuality.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    The individual first, but never absolute (5.00 / 3) (#296)
    by karlandtanya on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:41:36 PM EST

    The premise in a "free" society is "You can do whatever you want." The corrolary to that is "Everyone else can do whatever they want" as well. When your exercise of this freedom impinges on the exercise of another's freedom, some sort of arbitrator (the law) must be called in to settle the difference.

    When society at large marginalizes a group of people--be they black, female, Catholic--short, fat, whatever--it is the larger society who has made the first act of bad faith. The larger society has broken the social contract with the smaller group or individual.

    So, we have society acting in an overt legal manner--passing laws that say you have to drive on the right side of the road, don't kill folks unless you're defending yourself, etc. And we have society acting in an implicit manner--making common decisions, acting in a consistent way.

    And now, we get to your point of absolute freedom. Your absolute freedom means my absolute subjugation. There is no way around it. Fist/Nose, again. If society at large agrees--overtly or implicitly--to persecute one group of people (Jews, Black People, Women--take your pick)--then it becomes the responsibility of society at large to rectify that act of bad faith.

    So, no, you're not allowed to "not hire black people" at your business. And you're not allowed to "do whatever you like" in your house, either. Beat your wife? Lock your neighbors in the closet? It's your house, isn't it?

    Preservation of "everyone's" rights is a balancing act. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. I happen to believe that the preservation of the "rights of the group" over the rights of the individual is unjust. I believe that this is a violation of the social contract under which we all have agreed to operate. Under the US Constitution only a person has "rights" in US law. Governments (the people acting as one) have "powers". The distinction is important--these powers exist only to "Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty"--for the people. The "powers" of the various federal, state, and local governments exist only to serve the people--not the other way around.

    However, I think an absolutist stance like yours is indefensible. Further, it detracts from the position of individual rights by acting as a straw man for our opponents to tear down.

    Guess the k5 folks need the /. sig.

    Thought you were smarter than that.

    Oh, well.

    If all you can complain about is the spelling, everyone assumes you support the content.
    [ Parent ]

    logic is Libertarian, not anarchist (3.50 / 2) (#309)
    by dh003i on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:09:18 PM EST

    The premise in a "free" society is "You can do whatever you want."

    That is the premise in a state of absolute and complete anarchy. E.g., cave-man days. That is not in any way what I supported. I, like all libertarians, firmly believe in the non-aggression pact. This means that no-one has the right to initiate violence against anyone else. I don't have the right to beat the crap out of someone because don't like them; nor do I have the right to steal from them because don't like them. Both of these acts constitute property violations.

    I am, however, entitled not to invite someone into my house if I don't like them, not to offer my patronage as a consumer to someone I don't like, not to offer my services as a producer to someone I don't like, not to work for someone I don't like, or not to hire someone I don't like. I am entitled to do all of these things, however idiotic and illogical be the reason I don't like the person. That is because none of these things constitute violence against anyone else's property in either themselves or their property.

    You have the right to one thing: your rightfully acquired or homesteaded property. You naturally have a property right in your body and anything you pay for, or homestead. However, you do not have a right to be "liked" by me. You do not have a right to be invited into my house. You do not have a right to work for me. You do not have a right for me to work for you. You do not have a right to buy something from me, nor do you have a right to sell something to me. Your own ideas a clearly backwards, even by your own logic. You never hear liberals saying that potential employees should have to decide which job they take on a non-discriminatory basis? No, it is granted, even by liberals, that those seeking employment can be as bigotted as they want to in choosing who to work for.

    Of course, there are economic consequences to being idiotic. If you refuse to hire black people, or to work for them, or to buy from them, or to sell to them, you will face financial consequences, and market-share consequences, or possibly price-consequences. The black man that you didn't hire may go to a competing company, and his excellent leadership may eat away at your market share. The black man you refused to sell something do will take his patronage to another store, and will never return to yours; you have lost not only the immediate transaction, but also a customer (permanently), to a competitor. Furthermore, he will tell others of the way you treat blacks, and you may very well lose an entire market to your competitors. The black many you refused to buy from may have been offering the best product at the lowest price.

    All of your further misconceptions flow from your fundamental non-understanding of rights.

    your exercise of this freedom impinges on the exercise of another's freedom

    Freedom is different from property rights, which is what I'm talking about. If I stop someone from bashing my skull in, you can say I'm impinging on his freedom. You can't, however, say that I'm violating his property rights, as I am entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect my own property rights.

    When society at large marginalizes a group of people short...it is the larger society who has made the first act of bad faith. The larger society has broken the social contract with the smaller group or individual

    Society does not do anything. Society does not make decisions. Society is simply an abstraction to describe a system of individuals interacting -- individuals who make their own decisions, of their own free will. It is individuals who make decisions, not society.

    Now that we've cleared that up, let's talk about the decisions individuals make when they marginalize a certain group of people, because that's what we're talking about here. When an individual chooses to treat another individual -- or group of individuals -- badly, that is his choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. No-one person or group has the right to be treated nicely and looked upon kindly by anyone. You do, however, have the right to your property (natural property rights), as I said before. And, quite frankly, forcing someone to be nice to, or like, another person or group of people is a violation of that person's rights. To truely do so, you would have to excercise Orwellian mind-control over that person, violating his right to his own person; to simply generate the physical appearance of such, you would have to violate his right to his external property.

    Your absolute freedom means my absolute subjugation

    I think that I spoke relatively clearly. I did not advocate absolute freedom. The closest one can get to absolute freedom is a state of complete lawlessness (e.g., primitive man), which really isn't all that free at all, since someone else can imprison you, or rape you, or kill you. More realistically, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. No man has, or can ever have, absolute freedom. The only way you have absolute freedom is if you are a god.

    What I am talking about is not absolute freedom, but the absolute right to your own property, both in your person and in external items which you rightfully acquire or homestead.

    If society at large agrees...to persecute one group of people...then it becomes the responsibility of society at large to rectify that act of bad faith.

    "Society at large" does not agree to do anything. Certain individuals choose to partake in certain actions; to say that "society" chooses is to deny the free will of every person and declare him a cog in the "Leviathon Society".

    Certain individuals within society can act unkindly to other individuals. A Christian can choose not to allow a Wiccan in his house, even if it's raining outside. This may not be nice -- it may not be moral -- but it is the right of that Christian. No-one has the right to step on anyone elses property without that person's consent.

    No rational person would argue that a black woman does not have the right to decide to only sleep with black men. Nor would any rational person argue that a white woman should have the right to decide to only sleep with white men. Yet, somehow, magically, according to both liberals and conservatives alike, when this black or white woman opens a business, she has to allow anyone to step foot on it, despite the fact that she has just as much a property right in her business as she does in her own body.

    So, no, you're not allowed to "not hire black people" at your business

    This is what the current law says. This is most certainly the correct moral position (that we should not be bigotted). However, it is a completely invalid legal position, as law should deal only with property rights (which encompass all other rights). As I pointed out above, your logic is twisted and perverse.

    If a black man can decide not to work for a white employer, for no other reason than that he's white, then a white employer should be allowed to decide not to hire a black man, for no other reason than that he's black. The same for vica versa (e.g., a white man deciding not to work for or hire a black man).

    No potential employee has the right to step on my property (my business), nor to work for me. To imply that someone has the right to step onto my property, the right to work for me, is to imply that I really have no property rights, as I cannot even determine who can use my property. Nor do I have the right to have any particular potential employee work for me. To imply that I have the right to have anyone else work for me is to imply that they have no right to their property in their person, and essentially implies slavery.

    And you're not allowed to "do whatever you like" in your house, either. Beat your wife? Lock your neighbors in the closet? It's your house, isn't it?

    I never said you were, so I would appreciate you not mis-representing my position. If I lock someone in my house, or beat up my wife, I have violated their property in their person. This is easily discernable by the non-aggression pact. No-one has the right to initiate violence against anyone else, or their property. If beat my wife, I am gravely intruding on her right to her property in herself. Likewise if I lock her in the closet (false imprisonment necessarily violates a person's right to their property in their person).

    Preservation of "everyone's" rights is a balancing act.

    No, it is not. In almost all cases, it is very simple, because the only true rights are property rights. Insuring that no-one's rights are violated only means insuring that no-one initiates violence against any other person, and requiring transgressors to repay for their transgressions. This does not requires government, but can be provided for on the free market (see my ref at the end for more details).

    Governments (the people acting as one) have "powers"...The "powers" of the various federal, state, and local governments exist only to serve the people--not the other way around.

    Like your other statements, these are misonceptions. It is true that the govement has power, in the same sense that a warlord would have power. It has the power to force you to hand over your income to it, at the threat of gunpoint (in other words, the power to steal, and a monopoly on stealing). In theory, the government may exist to serve the people, but in practice, that is impossible. It is impossible because the government, necessarily, must steal from the people to support its own existence, and must and will commit mass murder (war), as well as make much of the population dependant on it for survival ("welfare"). It is also impossible because the government has no way to accurately measure the quality of it's service, as do business' (the profits-loss test).

    About a year ago, I was robbed at gunpoint by four individuals in a park. They stole 20 dollars from me. A couple of months later, they were caught, though I never got my 20 dollars back (undoubtely, it is now in the posession of our "serving" government). Despicable as this act of robbery was, it in no way compares to the scale and manner in which the state is robbing me. They stole 20 dollars from me last year. The state stole many thousands of dollars from me last year. Furthermore, at least with these muggers, they left after the fact, and did not follow me around, demanding my service and income so that they could "protect me" (translation: refrain from comitting violence against me). Most thankfully of all, these generous individuals did not proclaim to be my rightful ruler, and to truely be serving my best interest. At least they were honest about their theft. The state, on the other hand, does all of these things, and is much more of a terror to me than 4 muggers with guns ever could be; furthermore, it steals much more from me. Additionally, the state occassionally chooses to enslave me (e.g., forced jury duty). The state does all of this, not at the threat of gunpoint, but at the threat of hundreds of gunpoints, machine-guns, military weapons of mass destruction, and the threat of indefinite imprisonment. Sufficed to say, the moral character of those who stole money from me is vastly superior to that of the state (speaking more correctly, those who run the state).

    The government most certainly is not the "people acting as one". It is not the people at all. It is a few individuals with power (how they came to obtain that power is irrelevant) acting to further their own interests, increase the luxery of their lifestyle, and bestow favors upon their select chosen.

    This necessarily implies enormous conflict between various groups -- what should be taught at school? Christians will vehemently disagree with Scientists, and the result will be a lot of bickering back and force, and much wasted effort. There would not be such a problem if school was completely privitized.

    One last point: Regarding all of your comments, though they are completely invalid as matter of what should be law, they are completely valid as a matter of what is moral. However, simply because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal (though that which is moral should always be legal). It may be immoral of me to refuse to allow someone into my house when it's raining, or to curse at someone, or to lie to someone, or to engage in fornication or adultery; however, none of those things should be illegal.

    If you want a complete and methodical description of Libertarianism (which is what I've been talking about), then you should read For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. It is a long read, but it is extremely clear, precise, and well thought-out. For example, Rothbard clearly describes why it should be illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theatre at the end of the second chapter.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    The relevant difference (3.50 / 2) (#358)
    by CENGEL3 on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 05:20:01 PM EST

    The relevent difference is between inalienable RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES. Governments exist to secure the RIGHTS of thier citizens, they really have no other legitimate function. Most people would agree that freedom of belief is a RIGHT... most people in this country also happen to believe that ownership of private property is a RIGHT.

    Working for ACME Laundry is not a RIGHT it is a PRIVILEGE. The same holds true for being invited to John Smith's house for dinner. If it were a RIGHT rather then a PRIVILEGE then ACME Laundry would have to put the entire citizenry of the nation on it's payroll, likewise Mr. Smith would need an awfully big dinner table because his invitation would have to extend to the entire nation. Niether Mr. Smith nor ACME Laundry could exclude anyone for ANY reason.

    Clearly that is not the case. Government institutions (and government supported institutions) have an obligation to not discriminate because they have an obligation to represent all thier citizens equaly. Private individuals and private institutions have no such obligation. If I am involved in a lawsuit and I hire a lawyer, that lawyer is obligated to represent me... they have no obligation to represent the party I am sueing.

    Likewise, if I decide to marry some-one I am exercisizing a form of descrimination because I am choosing one specific individual to grant a privilege (my wife might argue it is a curse) to.
    By definition I exclude other people.... and I may do so on whatever basis I choose. This is really no different then if I choose to hire some-one to watch my children, mow my lawn or type a letter for me or operate a drill press at a bussiness wholely owned by me.

    The government does NOT have a LEGITIMATE right to force a private individual to grant PRIVILEGES to other individuals nor to determine on what basis that individual determines the grant of PRIVILEGES that they control.

    [ Parent ]

    finally, some clear thinking (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#361)
    by dh003i on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 05:55:52 PM EST


    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    Which is relevant precisely how? (5.00 / 1) (#378)
    by itsbruce on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 08:26:39 PM EST

    The government does NOT have a LEGITIMATE right to force a private individual to grant PRIVILEGES to other individuals o User Preferences nor to determine on what basis that individual determines the grant of PRIVILEGES that they control.

    So what? At the moment, the state decides who or who can't get married. By your argument, if the ability to get married is a right then the state should not be denying that right to homosexuals. If it's a privilege then, by your argument, the state should have no say in it at all. Since you don't indicate which you believe to be the case, you really haven't contributed anything (beyond yet more banging of the tired old Libertarian drum).


    --It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]

    you mis-understand his argument (3.50 / 2) (#380)
    by dh003i on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 09:16:32 PM EST

    The state should grant the tax-benefits of marriage to any two or more individuals who declare themselves married. That is fine. What is not fine is the state forcing various religions and individuals to accept that marriage officially in their religion.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    No religion... (5.00 / 1) (#386)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:53:59 AM EST

    ... would be forced to "accept that marriage officially in their religion" if the government decided that, for the purposes of all of its legal terminology, "marriage" is a union between two people regardless of their genders.

    The obstinate religious could speak whatever silly dialect they want. Meanwhile the rest of us could move on with calling spades "spades".



    [ Parent ]

    Explanation (5.00 / 1) (#416)
    by CENGEL3 on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 02:04:54 PM EST

    Actualy my arguement had nothing to do with granting homosexual couples equal legal status as heterosexual couples, I support that. I believe that the state IS OBLIGATED to do that due to the equal protection clause (which I strongly support) and due to the neccesity of equal representation of it's citizens.

    This thread seemed to depart on a bit of a tangent, taking the origional authors premise and expanding it with an exposition that the state had some sort of legitimate perogative to legislate "social acceptance" which is something I strongly oppose. It also brought in a tangent about the states current practice of legislating against the rights of private citizens to discriminate in thier private affairs (i.e. who they hire) which is something I also strongly oppose. It was in direct response to those points that my post was made. I was not attempting to address the legal status of homosexual couples.

    I still do think that using the term "marriage" (for either homosexual or hetersexual couples) is straying a bit too far into the territory of legislating social acceptance and a more language neutral term (i.e "civil union") should be used to define the legal contract recognized by the state. This would leave the term "marriage" to be defined by churches and other various social institutions according to thier own individual terms.


    [ Parent ]

    Not how that works. (5.00 / 2) (#339)
    by Sanction on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:12:27 PM EST

    All your "ownership" consists of is a claim written on a piece of paper giving legal recognition to a prior theft, enforced by government guns paid for by my taxes.  Without the threat of government violence, property ownership (not private possession) as known today is impossible.  I am being forced to pay the government to keep me from using public property because someone in the past bribed or killed someone first for it.  Quite a nice racket.

    Oh, and make sure you really understand the difference between the modern US concept of "private property" and possession before you answer too hastily.

    I can either stay in and be annoying or go out and be stupid. The choice is yours.
    [ Parent ]

    invalid assumption (3.50 / 2) (#341)
    by dh003i on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:23:56 PM EST

    There is no reason why private property rights cannot be enforced without any government at all. There is no reason why private property rights cannot be enforced by free market forces. In a chapter on the courts and police, Rothbard explains how <a href=http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp>private courts, juries, police, and so-on could enforce</a> a respect for property rights. Please do read that before you respond with more ignorant assertions that the government is required to enforce respect of private property rights.

    In fact, the argument that the government is necessary for the respect of private property rights is patently false, and cannot possibly be true, because any government, by definition, must necessarily violate private property rights and steal from the people at the threat of gunpoint.

    By the way, the government is responsible for more destruction and violation of private property  -- both in material things, and in people -- than any other entity. It relies on stealing from taxpayers (you can jump through whatever hoops you want, but taxes are still theft) to support mass murder (war), mass slavery (conscription and jury duty), and to reinforce its system of mass-theft (taxes). The government is nothing more than an enormous organized criminal gang, carrying out murder, enslavement, and theft on a mass-scale.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    Interesting article, but inadequate. (5.00 / 1) (#350)
    by Sanction on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 02:35:54 PM EST

    There are a few assumptions that he makes consistently throughout the article that are simply not backed by evidence.  The first is that violent conflict would not arise between courts or police forces because it would be "bad for business," despite ample evidence of corporations that are quite willing to sacrifice public goodwill for large financial gain.

    Another issue  is the disturbing vision of the legal code.  First he supports liberty, then goes on to describe attitudes of judicial systems (all redheads are evil is his example) that are "against libertarian principles" and would not be allowed.  He also assumes that the legal code, which is the one binding on all judicial systems, would recognize the libertarien concepts of property and force, which are far from the only definitions, and in fact not even the majority interpretations of those terms.

    AS to the end, there is no conflict in government both enforcing and taking property.  The existance of "private property" under the modern US definition of the term is merely the legal recognition of theft from the public, no different from taxation.  For a society to be free, taxation would need to be eliminated, but property would have to be returned to a more traditional definition as well, excluding the hoarding of non-used resources, often for the sole purpose of depriving society of their use.

    It is an interesting article of his, and I may read more, but he makes some assumptions that I am not comfortable with.  The problem is that he claims to want to achieve maximum freedom, but wants to enshrine his definitions of force and property as the only ones allowed.  This means one may choose judicial systems based on efficiency or price, but not the laws they support.  That strikes me as being uncomfortably close to the current system, just with a different group making the rules.

    I can either stay in and be annoying or go out and be stupid. The choice is yours.
    [ Parent ]

    evidence (4.50 / 2) (#352)
    by dh003i on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 04:05:53 PM EST

    a few assumptions that he makes consistently throughout the article that are simply not backed by evidence

    Whenever postulating how a free market would work, if the government released it's draconian grip, there is almost always no evidence to suggest how it would work. However, in this specific case, there is evidence in Ancient Ireland, which Rothbard points to. Ancient Ireland had no government, and had privtized "courts" and law-enforcement. There was, in effect, no government. Yet, ancient Ireland was by no means in a state of anarchy. Furthermore, while the rest of Europe was murdering eachother because of what invisible man was being prayed to, the Irish lived in peace. Finally, due to the decentralized nature of Ireland, and the complete lack of any authoritative and centralized power-structures, it took to British hundreds of years to conquer Ireland, and they could only do so using the most brutal of tactics.

    The first is that violent conflict would not arise between courts or police forces because it would be "bad for business," despite ample evidence of corporations that are quite willing to sacrifice public goodwill for large financial gain

    What you say is impossible. If corporations make financial gains by pleasing their customers, not angering them. In the long-run -- even more-so in the short-run without government supported monopolies -- companies that do not serve their customers well will lose market share and go bankrupt. Furthermore, it is not profitable for different police-companies to engage in violent gunfights with one-another. This will result in loss of life, waste of weapons, and bad public sentiment; all of this means lost money. Customers would not be paying police-companies to create violent situations on the streets between eachother; thus, companies that did such would lose money, and would become outlaws themselves, to be trialed by private courts, and arrested by other private police-firms (that is, their employees).

    Even if we assume that violent conflict would arupt, so what? It would be localized. We could even assume that complete anarchy may erupt. Again, so what? It would be localized. How many innocent bystanders are killed in gang-wars? Hundreds, maybe. Never would there occur the murder of millions of innocent civilians, as is a necessary consequence of the Nation State (e.g., Hiroshima, the Holocaust, and international war in general, none of which would be possible without government).

    He also assumes that the legal code, which is the one binding on all judicial systems, would recognize the libertarien concepts of property and force

    Since courts and police forces would have to make their living on the free market, the principles they would have to select would naturally be libertarian. Libertarian principles are the only principles thoroughly in tune with the nature of man. People will pay private courts and private police forces to protect their property, and those that fail to institute rules doing so and in fact do so will lose market share and go bankrupt.

    there is no conflict in government both enforcing and taking property...The existance of "private property" under the modern US definition of the term is merely the legal recognition of theft from the public

    Stating something which is absurd and then backing it up by something which is equally absurd does not make for a good line of logic. The government does not, in any respect, enforce the respect of private property rights. The government merely establishes for itself a monopoly on the power to steal, rape, murder, and enslave. Any of the same things done by an individual would be abhorred. If I got together with 10 other people and decided to "tax you" for the good of "our society", we would be abhorred and laughed out of court; we probably wouldn't even have the brazen to use such a defense. Yet, somehow, as the number of thieves approaches 10-million, the public is duped.

    As for your hogwash on the definition of private property, it's just that -- hogwash. Private property is obtained by either rightfully acquiring it by voluntary contract or homesteading it. For example, because I've homesteaded my body, it is my private property. If I go out at sea and start working a 50-yard square area of the ocean, then it becomes my property, in so far as I've homesteaded previously unused private property.

    property would have to be returned to a more traditional definition as well, excluding the hoarding of non-used resources, often for the sole purpose of depriving society of their use

    The only definition of property that is natural, that abides by natural law, by the natural law of man, is that which defines property by homesteading. Homesteading necessarily rules out property-hoarding. To homestead something, you have to actually use it. If there were 10,000 people alive on Earth, and no property had been claimed, I couldn't homestead property by pointing to it on a map and saying "that's mine". I'd have to actually use and work on the property in some way.

    The problem is that he claims to want to achieve maximum freedom, but wants to enshrine his definitions of force and property as the only ones allowed. This means one may choose judicial systems based on efficiency or price, but not the laws they support. That strikes me as being uncomfortably close to the current system, just with a different group making the rules.

    The free market would decide what rules of arbitration courts are to use. And the free market would naturally support libertarian ideas, as they are the only ones which are in tune with the nature of man. See Rothbard's The Libertarian Creed for an explanation of natural law.

    There would be no "one" judicial system. There would competition between different private firms. Those that failed to enforce a respect for private property would lose business and go bankrupt. No-one is going to pay a monthly bill to a court (via a court insurance plan) if that court isn't going to enforce a respect of their private property.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    Having read as much as I could stand of that link. (4.00 / 1) (#447)
    by thejeff on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 09:23:27 PM EST

    A few things leap out at me. The first is the insistence that no coercive force can be used on anyone until they are convicted. Which may work fine with civil disputes and small cases, but would seem to fail utterly in any case where the consequences are high enough. A murderer, especially a professional, is unlikely to meekly show up for a trial if he believes the evidence to be against him. He'll run and hide and no one can stop him.

    The larger issue affects both the police and the courts. There is an assumption that what the people hiring these services want is justice. They will want police and judges to be fair and impartial. I say that's bull. Especially for the police. Essentially these are private guards. People, especially those who can afford more, will hire police who will do as they're told. Why wouldn't they.

    The same with courts. In most court cases at least one party, and probably both, doesn't want justice, they want to win. The appeals system might help, but I'd expect almost every case to be appealed and the courts would go through a similar process choosing an appeals court, that not the fairest and most expert, but the one most likely to support their verdict.

    [ Parent ]

    if you had actually bothered to read (4.00 / 1) (#448)
    by dh003i on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 10:44:07 PM EST

    I assume that you are referring to the link on Rothbard's discussion of the free-market judicial system: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts. If you had actually bothered to read the entire chapter, you would have the answers to your concerns. I will respond to all of your concerns by quoting Rothbard, not because I cannot respond to them in my own words, but because I wish to point out the importance of reading something in it's entirity before criticizing it.

    the insistence that no coercive force can be used on anyone until they are convicted. Which may work fine with civil disputes and small cases, but would seem to fail utterly in any case where the consequences are high enough. A murderer, especially a professional, is unlikely to meekly show up for a trial if he believes the evidence to be against him. He'll run and hide and no one can stop him.

    Brown would be served with a voluntary subpoena, a notice that he is being tried on such and such a charge and inviting him or his legal representative to appear. If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon--a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim
    courts. In most court cases at least one party, and probably both, doesn't want justice, they want to win. The appeals system might help, but I'd expect almost every case to be appealed and the courts would go through a similar process choosing an appeals court, that not the fairest and most expert, but the one most likely to support their verdict.
    What of the court which favors its own wealthy client in trouble? In the first place, any such favoritism will be highly unlikely, given the rewards and sanctions of the free market economy. The very life of the court, the very livelihood of a judge, will depend on his reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, objectivity, and the quest for truth in every case. This is his "brand name." Should word of any venality leak out, he will immediately lose clients and the courts will no longer have customers; for even those clients who may be criminally inclined will scarcely sponsor a court whose decisions are no longer taken seriously by the rest of society, or who themselves may well be in jail for dishonest and fraudulent dealings. If, for example, Joe Zilch is accused of a crime or breach of contract, and he goes to a "court" headed by his brother-in-law, no one, least of all other, honest courts will take this "court's" decision seriously. It will no longer be considered a "court" in the eyes of anyone but Joe Zilch and his family.

    Furthermore, the temptation for venality and bias would be far less for another reason: business firms in the free market earn their keep, not from wealthy customers, but from a mass market by consumers. Macy's earns its income from the mass of the population, not from a few wealthy customers. The same is true of Metropolitan Life Insurance today, and the same would be true of any "Metropolitan" court system tomorrow. It would be folly indeed for the courts to risk the loss of favor by the bulk of its customers for the favors of a few wealthy clients. But contrast the present system, where judges, like all other politicians, may be beholden to wealthy contributors who finance the campaigns of their political parties.

    There is an assumption that what the people hiring these services want is justice. They will want police and judges to be fair and impartial. I say that's bull. Especially for the police. Essentially these are private guards. People, especially those who can afford more, will hire police who will do as they're told. Why wouldn't they.
    The same analysis applies to the possibility of a private police force becoming outlaw, of using their coercive powers to exact tribute, set up a "protection racket" to shake down their victims, etc. Of course, such a thing could happen. But, in contrast to present-day society, there would be immediate checks and balances available; there would be other police forces who could use their weapons to band together to put down the aggressors against their clientele. If the Metropolitan Police Force should become gangsters and exact tribute, then the rest of society could flock to the Prudential, Equitable, etc., police forces who could band together to put them down. And this contrasts vividly with the State. If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop them--short of the immensely difficult process of revolution. In a libertarian society there would be no need for a massive revolution to stop the depredation of gangster-States; there would be a swift turning to the honest police forces to check and put down the force that had turned bandit.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    Gave up somewhere after this (4.00 / 1) (#449)
    by thejeff on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 11:49:41 PM EST

         If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon--a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim

    By which time Brown is long gone, living in a different part of the world under a different name. Sure he's been convicted, but if the court doesn't have him what does it matter. And since there is no central authority finding him again is even less likely than in today's world. Even if he is found, it would have to be proved in court that he is Brown before he can be seized, thus giving him another chance to disappear.

    As for the other assumptions, you have a far more idealistic image of humanity than I do.

    [ Parent ]

    no different than now (4.00 / 1) (#450)
    by dh003i on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 12:35:18 AM EST

    If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon--a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim

    By which time Brown is long gone, living in a different part of the world under a different name. Sure he's been convicted, but if the court doesn't have him what does it matter. And since there is no central authority finding him again is even less likely than in today's world. Even if he is found, it would have to be proved in court that he is Brown before he can be seized, thus giving him another chance to disappear.

    Typical of statists who support theft and murder on a mass scale (which is what anyone who supports the state necessarily supports). The same things occur with the state. Criminals can run when they think they'll be charged, or right after they commit the crimes. As for proving it was Brown, that's relatively easy. If the police have enough knowledge to identify a suspect and serve him a notice of voluntary subpoena, then they most certainly can identify him by sight.

    As for catching him again, there's no reason why many different local companies wouldn't hook up with on a national and inter-national scale to deal with these kinds of problems. Also, there's no reason why one police-company can't have branches in many different cities, nation-wide.

    By the way, in a state-less society with an understanding that all valid rights are based on property rights, if one could find a criminal to serve him with a subpoena, one could keep an eye on him. The law-enforcement companies could have someone designated to follow him around, so that if he does flee, they know where he went. They could also distribute important identifying information to all of their branches and other companies. All of this would be permitted, as none of that is in any way a form of aggression against Brown.

    As for the other assumptions, you have a far more idealistic image of humanity than I do.

    In other words, you can't respond because you have no valid criticisms. The simple fact is, if a certain court or police starts acting as an outlaw, it will be put down two-fold: (1) It will lose the mass of it's customers, who are not wealthy; (2) It will be put down by other law-enforcement companies. I can only assume that your assumption is that courts and police-forces which are corrupt will retain the support of their customers. This is clearly absurd, since all companies must please their customers in order to survive.

    Furthermore, since, in many cases, the police-force and judges would be supplied by insurance companies who have to recompensate victims for crimes the criminal comitted, they'd want to catch that criminal (who would then have to compensate the insurance company, or would be the one compensating the victim directly, instead of the insurance company).

    Libertarianism is the best system precisely because it is not idealistic. It arrives at it's conclusions from the nature of man, and does not require that all men become selfless and un-corruptable in order for it to work. On the contrary, your philosophy -- which is obviously a sect of Statism, be it interventionalism, minimalism, socialism, or communism -- requires fundamental changes to the nature of man to even begin to have positive results. It is idealistic and stupid to give monopolistic power to the certain individuals (be these individuals despots or democratically elected) to steal and murder, and expect them to somehow use those powers judicially.

    Despite all of your pretention, your philosophy boils down to one thing: Giving certain individuals a monopoly to steal, rape, and murder. It mandates theft on a massive scale at all times (taxes); it mandates Welfare (breeding unhealthy dependence on these organized criminals); and it mandates murder on a mass-scale, since centralized power always leads to war, which is mass-murder.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    And why the fuck.... (3.00 / 3) (#417)
    by DavidTC on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 02:05:13 PM EST

    Regarding gay marriage, the law should not recognize marriage. It should recognize a legal union between two or more people which has certain (beneficial) tax and credit implications. Whether or not churches should officially acknowledge gay or polygamous marriages is up to them; denying them the right to choose violates their property rights.

    Why the fuck do religions get to define what the word 'marriage' means. Or, more specifically, why do certain influencial religions get the choice? (There are plenty of religions have have no issues with gay marriage, or polygamy, or whatever.)

    Pretending there is any consensus on what is an 'allowable' marriage, or that even if religions had a consensus that such defination should be codified into law, is insane.

    And there are plenty of people, and religions, who think marriage doesn't require one man and one woman. Marriages of other forms has been acceptable more often than it was not acceptable in the history of the world, and has even shown up in US at times, re Mormon polygamy and Boston marriages.

    Don't let current Christian churches hijack the language. Marriage has never meant 'one man and one woman'. If it did, people wouldn't use it to refer to other things. And if we were going by what they said, we'd only call someone's first marriage 'marriage'.

    Even now it doesn't mean what they are trying to make it mean, as people have no semantic problem with 'gay marriage', just like they have no difficultly in understanding how someone has three wives. There are no people staring in bafflement at the term 'gay marriage' and trying to figure out if people mean a gay man marrying a lesbian or something.

    Marriage, at the moment in the US, legally, only has a man and a woman, but what the law is is not the defination of the word. (And if the law was the defination of the word, all you'd have to do is change the law anyway.)

    The concept of marriage is possibly the oldest concept in history, not only predating writing, but probably predating speech. The presumption that a vocal minority in the US gets to decide what to call a marriage, yes, a marriage between two men is absurd, especally when they're only calling it something else to try to make it less legitimate.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Because (4.50 / 2) (#420)
    by CENGEL3 on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 02:36:07 PM EST

    The actual word "marriage" has a religious origion. It didn't enter the english language until about 1300 (I think that would be Middle English) and came from Old French.

    I don't think I have to explain to you that during that period it was very much the Church (with a capital "C") that controled the definition of such.

    While the concept of marriage is certainly not Christian (although I think it would be fair to argue that it is "religious" for even neolithic hunter-gathers had "religion" as part of thier rituals for major life events), the word itself (i.e. the "language") most certainly is Christian. This is not a case of Christian churches trying to "hijack" secular language but rather the other way around.

    It would be analagous to having the government define the term "baptisim" . Certainly the concept had it's origions way back in pre-history but the particular word itself is clearly Christian.

    This might be a little pedantic...and I'm even Christian, myself, but I think the word is clearly religious (and specificly Christian) in conotation.

    [ Parent ]

    No. (4.00 / 2) (#424)
    by DavidTC on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 03:43:49 PM EST

    Um, no it doesn't.

    The fact that the current word moved into English at a certain time doesn't mean anything at all about its relationship with the church.

    And in origin, the word is clearly Latin. It's from maritusm. and probably comes from the concept of 'provided with a woman'.

    Claiming it has Christian orgin is incorrect.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Not according to my sources (4.00 / 2) (#428)
    by CENGEL3 on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 04:43:48 PM EST

    "Marriage also entered English about 1300 as mariage from Old French mariage. That was formed from the verb marier plus the suffix -age. That suffix is used to form a noun from a verb. It comes from Old French - age."

    www.takeourword.com

    The Latin word I think you are looking for is "maritus" which translates as "husband".

    The "provided with a woman" (actualy I think it's supposed to be "provided with a young woman") comes from what scholars speculate as the Indo-European root *mer-.

    Of course, I am not a linguiist so your sources might be better then mine. However I am a little bit of an historian and I can certainly tell you that "mariage" as it entered the English language in 1300 was very much an institution that was defined (and controled) by the church. You may not like that very much, but it happens to be true.

    By the way, there was a typo in my previous post, the part which reads "I am Chirstian" is supposed to read "I am NOT Christian"

     

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry... (4.00 / 3) (#438)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 11:20:35 PM EST

    ... but, I fail to see what difference the etymology of the word "marriage" makes. (Which is not to say that I accept your account of it, just that it doesn't matter one way or the other.)

    It is now a word in common usage, with various denotations and connotations. Is it used by people in both religious and secular contexts. The type of arraignment the term is applied to, the concept to which it refers, is older than christianity.

    Since the US government is to be secular one, when it uses the term, there is no reason for it to base its meaning for the term on some particular set of religious meanings for it. Quite the opposite, since the government is forbid from endorsing particular religions, there is every reason for it to avoid basing its meaning for the term on those particular religious meanings. It seems reasonable to me that it would base its meaning on the very very old concept to which the term applies. But hey, that is probably just me wanting to call a spade "a spade".



    [ Parent ]

    because it's up to religion (4.50 / 2) (#423)
    by dh003i on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 03:41:24 PM EST

    Why the fuck do religions get to define what the word 'marriage' means

    Because it's up to every religion to decide what "marriage" (or it's equivalent word) means. To some Churches, this may mean that only the first union between a man and a woman who've been baptized is acknowledged. To others, it could be far more inclusive. Anyways, it's for each religious group to decide what it will accept as an official marriage within the religion; acceptance thereof is enforced via norms.

    Irrelevant of the fact that religion is nothing but a bunch of hocus-pocus belief in magic and sorcery and other fairy-tales, the government should not force certain churches to officially condone, say, homosexual marriage; nor should it force them not to condone it.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.
    [ Parent ]

    I'm all for that. (4.66 / 3) (#427)
    by DavidTC on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:23 PM EST

    I'm fine with that. It's just that marriage is a legal term also.

    If marriage was just a religious term, gay people could rather easily get married. All they'd have to do is find a church to marry them, or just someone willing to stand there and recite some words.

    The problem is that it's a legal term too, which they are trying to define.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    That worked so well... (4.00 / 2) (#360)
    by CENGEL3 on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 05:44:34 PM EST

    For the British government when they attempted to force thier North American subjects to pay certain taxes a couple centuries ago, didn't it?

    "Without desegregation, many psychologists posit that rasicm will have not seen the dramatic drop it has over the last 50 years."

    I do not know whether that statement is true but it would not surprise me that "many psychologists" like "many academics" have thier heads up thier collective arses.

    Don't you know that when you use physical force (and legislation is ultimately physical force) to attempt to dictate to people what thier beliefs must be thier natural reaction will be to attempt to resist those beliefs even more vehemently?

    Not only is it impractical, it is in fact immoral.... even "Evil" (with a capital "E" ) to use force to control some-one elses thoughts. Prehaps one of the most basic human rights is the freedom of thought....that is the right to hold, in the sanctity of ones own mind whatever beliefs one chooses (as differentiated from actions...which can conflict with the rights of others).... this freedom is not only limited to beliefs that YOU would accept as "correct" but extends to ALL beliefs...even the beliefs of "bigots".

    Thats my greatest problem with modern liberals, they are great defenders of freedom of thought and expression.... AS LONG AS THOSE THOUGHTS and EXPRESSIONS HAPPEN TO BE ONES THEY AGREE WITH. Once a thought or belief happens to disagree with something they believe it no longer has any right to protection and must be rutherlessly legislated out of existence upon pain of death.

    By the way, any student of history will tell you that desegregation didn't occur until there was ALREADY a "dramatic drop" in racism.

    [ Parent ]

    uh huh. (5.00 / 1) (#365)
    by fenix down on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 06:42:29 PM EST

    You can't use force to control someone else's thoughts. And as such nobody's trying. Thoughts and actions are quite different things, as you so astutely realize, and the primary difference is that your thoughts can't affect others, which makes it very difficult for a government, also known as a group of other people to control them. The point which your parent may not, but should, be making, is that it's pretty fucking hard to treat somebody as your equal when the government feels otherwise. At this point in time, I think we can all agree that most people in this country believe that gay people are more or less the same as the rest of us. So why is public opinion considerably more conflicted about gay marriage? Because most people do what their government tells them, and right now our government is telling us that married gay people are somehow very different from married straight people in a way that single gays and straights are not. You're right that there was a dramatic drop in racism before desegregation, much in the same way that the recent dramatic drop in homophobia preceded this argument over gay marriage.

    [ Parent ]
    uh huh. (4.50 / 4) (#366)
    by fenix down on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 06:44:21 PM EST

    You can't use force to control someone else's thoughts. And as such nobody's trying. Thoughts and actions are quite different things, as you so astutely realize, and the primary difference is that your thoughts can't affect others, which makes it very difficult for a government, also known as a group of other people to control them.

    The point which your parent may not, but should, be making, is that it's pretty fucking hard to treat somebody as your equal when the government feels otherwise. At this point in time, I think we can all agree that most people in this country believe that gay people are more or less the same as the rest of us. So why is public opinion considerably more conflicted about gay marriage? Because most people do what their government tells them, and right now our government is telling us that married gay people are somehow very different from married straight people in a way that single gays and straights are not.

    You're right that there was a dramatic drop in racism before desegregation, much in the same way that the recent dramatic drop in homophobia preceded this argument over gay marriage.

    [ Parent ]

    You do realise ... (4.66 / 3) (#430)
    by Simon Kinahan on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 05:01:53 PM EST

    ... that the Boston Tea Party was a protest against a tax *cut*, right ?

    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]
    Other People's Marriages are none of your business (4.64 / 25) (#264)
    by karlandtanya on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:32:02 PM EST

    I am a married man.

    I happen to be married to a woman--because she is the person God has chosen as my perfect wife, partner, lover, and friend.

    I have two friends--both men. They are married. The state doesn't recognize the marriage. Let's not get into semantics here--I'm being perfectly clear, so don't act ignorant.

    My friends want to be legally recognized in their marriage.

    Were they to be so recognized, that recognition would not affect my marriage with my wife one whit. In short, I, and any other person, have no right to claim "subversion of the institution of marriage" as a reason to deny my friends the same legal rights my wife and I happen to enjoy.

    "Eroding the institution of marriage", "Destabilizing the family", "Leading our children down the path of permissiveness", "Destroying our social institutions" are neither new nor valid arguments. The same arguments were made against allowing blacks into state colleges. Against allowing women into the millitary. Against allowing Mexicans to live on *your* side of the tracks.

    In the context of our social contract with one another (our legal system), these arguments have been repeatedly dismissed as not relavant. Where law has chosen not to uphold these arguments, and individuals have stepped in, the law has taken affirmative measures to assure equal protection for all citizens. There is a Fair Housing Act. There are women in the millitary. The driver can't force Black people to sit at the back of the bus.

    Gay marriage is coming, people. There's nothing you can do to stop it. You will piss and moan about the destruction of society--as you have done in years past. Gay people will marry and society will endure. And you will find another behaviour against which to become morally indignant. And you will use the law to inflict your views on people whose behaviour really doesn't affect you.

    And you will fail.

    Again.

    Guess the k5 folks need the /. sig.

    Thought you were smarter than that.

    Oh, well.

    If all you can complain about is the spelling, everyone assumes you support the content.

    caution - mind manipulators at work - (nt) (2.00 / 5) (#394)
    by mami on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 05:52:17 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Yes, they're called liberals (n/t) (none / 0) (#497)
    by TuringTest2002 on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 09:25:29 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    What happened to the 14th amendment? (4.50 / 8) (#292)
    by Hektor on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 07:15:32 PM EST

    Okay, I'm not a citizen of the US of A, but just HOW can it be illegal for two homosexuals to be married? I'm not a lawyer, but the 14th amendment, section I states:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Now, equal protection, to me at least, means, that you cannot make discriminatory laws.

    Also, how is it, that "the land of the free" has so many laws agains gay people? "You're free, as long as you're not attracted to people of your own gender". You can't be gay. It's illegal. It's imorral. God wants us to kill the gay people. That's his bidding. Well, gay guys anyway, because we love looking at hot lesbians having hot sex with eachother on the television, and we sure as hell want some girl on girl action, when the missus suggests a menage a troi.

    And then you have the american curches holding up signs saying "Gay Marriage Is Evil", but I keep reading it as "Paedophile" - not sure why though ...  think it has something to do with the old saying "don't throw stones" or something like that. Or maybe I just hate biggots. I don't know. I'm just rambling.

    "Right" on, literally (4.66 / 3) (#306)
    by Pluto on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 09:02:25 PM EST

    Well, responding to the coherent part of your comment ;-) there are some rather important civil rights that folks with marriage contracts have. For example:

    Spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other in court.

    This civil right is essential, in many ways, for couples who are engaged in domestic unions.

    And you can't fabricate this puppy with an M-corp, either.

    It is denied to same-sex partners in the US. If you take the time to think this through, you'll realize how dangerous that is.

    (BTW, creditors will benefit greatly from these same-sex unions, since they will have ever-so-much-more recourse on those unpaid bills.)
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    Opposition argues otherwise (none / 0) (#498)
    by punkfag on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 01:04:38 PM EST

    The argument of the anti-gays (e.g. Judge Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas) is that the 14th ammendment is not being violated. In the Texas Sodomy case, the prosecuting argument was that no man -- homosexual or heterosexual -- had the right to have sex with another man. Since the law did not recognize a distinction between "sexual orientations", it could not be a basis for discrimination.

    [ Parent ]
    Corporations, Traditions, funky smells at 2am. (3.00 / 3) (#329)
    by stormysky on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 04:26:49 AM EST

    Going off on a total tangent here (frankly, I think this whole issue is silly... I'm not stepping in until someone tells me I can't marry my apple pie... all the pie fuckers out there, let's get ourselves some rights!) I'm wondering, how would things work with name changes were marriage to just be a corporation?  From a genealogy perspective, and regarding children of a 'corporate' marriage (whether from artificial insemination or adoption)?

    Whose last name would change? Would any? What last name would children have? Would the terms "husband" and "wife" still suffice, or would we need to use "spouse" as a catch all?

    For the record, I despise Christians.  I also rather despise pretty much any organized religion.  I'll leave my sexuality out of this, but suffice it to say I've got no moral or ethical issues with homosexuals, bisexuals, and bunny-lovers.  I do have a problem with people asking for special rights, based on something that should be irrelevant.  Weren't there, at some point in our not terribly far back past, that a Catholic marrying, say, a Jew, was about the same as a man marrying a man?  People just need to get over the labels.

    I think I'm against gay marriages because it makes more effort for genealogists. I'm also against Presidents from Texas who read to kindergarteners while large, people filled buildings burn.
    Too bad my opinion doesn't matter much on these things.

    We can face anything, except for bunnies.

    Crux of the problem (3.87 / 8) (#340)
    by ProudestMonkey on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:17:02 PM EST

    This is a fairly well-informed article, but you may want to reword your statement about the crux of the problem in the intro: "The crux of the problem is that economic issues are being bound to religious positions, where it is winner take all." As you (somewhat) state later, the real "problem" (depends which side of the debate you're on whether you feel it's a problem or not) is simply that the traditional definition of marriage, at least in the US, is a union between a man and a woman. You could argue convincingly that such a definition comes completely from religious positions, or you could bring biology into it or whatever you want, but either way, that's the traditional definition, and the definition is what's keeping gay and lesbian couples from being married in the US (or at least that's what lawmakers are using to keep them from it). I'm not taking a stance here, I just thought I'd point out a possible weakness in the opening of your argument.
    we spend all of our lives going out of our minds...
    Gay Marriage (2.77 / 9) (#346)
    by abner23 on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 12:55:50 PM EST

    Maybe we oughtta give the fags a chance. Straight marriage isn't working so well... What's the divorce rate?

    -- What is the good of being ready with the tongue? What is the meaning of the "Fez"? What is the meaning of the Yak? What is the nature of altruism?
    Your proposal is Denial disguised as Compromise (4.40 / 10) (#381)
    by Artful Codger on Thu Sep 18, 2003 at 09:21:40 PM EST

    Yes, acceptance of same-sex marriage is yet another blow to "traditional" values. Get over it. We managed to (almost) abolish slavery, and women got the vote, and the sky hasn't fallen yet.

    Your proposal denies the fact that same-sex unions are as intense, supportive, and spiritual as hetero unions. Why should they accept a watered-down tax shelter in place of full-up recognition of commitment to each other?

    You didn't touch on the issue of children which in the distant past was possibly the most compelling historical/behavioural reason for a long monogamous union.

    Many are worried that same-sex parents would somehow raise deviant, morally weak children. My sister has worked for child welfare organizations for several years. Her job often requires her to rescue children from abusive, drunken, neglectful hetero parents. Usually the child is later returned. Sometimes the child is rescued several times. Sometimes they die. My sister's experience makes it clear that the basic ability to screw and get pregnant is by itself not a sufficient qualification to be parents, though currently this is society's view.

    Do I think a "married" same-sex couple, with the desire and commitment to raise children, would likely make good parents? Hell, yes.

    That's a knee-jerk reaction (none / 0) (#492)
    by lazyll on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:23:18 PM EST

    Your proposal denies the fact that same-sex unions are as intense, supportive, and spiritual as hetero unions

    Did we read the same article? It does absolutly nothing of the sort. If you think otherwise please quote a passage that supports this statement.

    Why should they accept a watered-down tax shelter in place of full-up recognition of commitment to each other?

    Recognition from whom? In what form? Your talking about social acceptance. The whole point of the article is that the state can't give them social acceptance. All the state can offer is political and financial equality.

    Many are worried that same-sex parents would somehow raise deviant, morally weak children. My sister has worked for child welfare organizations for several years. Her job often requires her to rescue children from abusive, drunken, neglectful hetero parents. Usually the child is later returned. Sometimes the child is rescued several times. Sometimes they die. My sister's experience makes it clear that the basic ability to screw and get pregnant is by itself not a sufficient qualification to be parents, though currently this is society's view.

    Do I think a "married" same-sex couple, with the desire and commitment to raise children, would likely make good parents? Hell, yes.

    These statements are completely irrelevant. The article made absolutly no mention of children whatsoever. This makes it obvious that your post is a knee-jerk reaction. You're not responding to the article; you're just venting your opinion on the current state of the same-sex marriage controversy

    I'll simplify. The article is saying that the problem lies in the fact that the term 'marriage' has both legal and religious meanings. This is in direct conflict with the notion of 'the separation of church and state', and so it should be changed. The article suggests that the state should drop the use of the term 'marriage' completly, and give same-sex and hetero couples the exact same recongnition under a different name. Personally, I think this is an ideal solution.

    [ Parent ]
    union vs. marriage (4.16 / 6) (#389)
    by antispamist on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 03:08:23 AM EST

    For those of you arguing against gay marriage because it does not fall within the restricted definition in the bible...What about the millions of Americans currently married in a heterosexual relationship who married out of the church and who could give a shit about your definition... From that standpoint, many hetero-marriages would be null and void. Correct? As for children... Who amongst the religious would deny the millions of children in the world living without a home, food and love because it might come in the form of two men? Should your values prevent them from their basic rights to a family of their own... LGBTQ[Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Trans and Queer] deserve the right to share the parenting experience just as any other couple. They are not choosing to be parents to make a political point, but out of love. I do not think children would give a shit who the love is coming from, they would just be happy to receive it. Love is blind and these arguments reek of the same close-minded sentiments of biracial couples and the "concern" for their children.

    A useless endevor that will certainly leave u wanting less but getting more.
    Biblical definition of marriage (3.33 / 3) (#397)
    by lpp on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 08:23:48 AM EST

    From a Christian point of view (doctrinal issues of some denominations not withstanding), marriage is defined simply as the union of man and woman.

    Whether you believe or not does not play into it. So the hetero non believing couples you mentioned are all very much married.

    Gay couples are excluded on the basis of the condemnation of homosexual behavior in the Bible.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not that simple and then again, it is (4.00 / 4) (#410)
    by ab762 on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:10:19 PM EST

    Many legally recognized second, ... nth marriages are not necessarily recognized by particular churches. The Roman Catholic church doesn't officially recognize divorce at all (although you can jump through various hoops to arrive at almost the same place.) The Anglican Church of Canada (where I live, ok?) has a different set of hoops to jump through for second marriages (budget at least two years to complete the proces.)

    So, the churches have been living with "church recognized marriages" as a subset (and not always a proper subset, see below) of "state recognized marriages" for a long time. One more class isn't going to be a real deal.

    The other issue is that sometimes religious divorces are not recognized as legal divorces, and vice versa -- this has complex ramifications.

    For example, in the eyes of your favorite church, who is Elizabeth Taylor married to, if anyone?

    FWIW, Canada identified over 350 pieces of legislation to be modified to include "civil union" - introducing one to define marriage more inclusively seems like the easy solution.
    Some dumb Canadian
    [ Parent ]

    A Completely New Proposal (3.83 / 6) (#414)
    by Pluto on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:50:59 PM EST

    Dear lpp:

    First of all, I want to say that this article (which you wrote) was very well done! It elicited a fantastic, and for the most part, intelligent and thoughtful discussion.

    I would also like to compliment you on the restraint you've shown in holding back from the debate. As for the "de-bait" I sympathize with you that the most egregious trolls are those defending Christianity. That must hurt.

    On a topical note, the last wedding I attended was preformed by a Christian Elvis impersonator. As we sipped champagne, he told me that he believes same-sex marriages are just fine and enjoys performing them.

    Since Mr. Elvis has just as much legal right to perform a marriage as does a church -- I believe that his views about same-sex marriage are equally valid.

    Thus, I propose that

  • People who hate fagots should get married in a church, where they can condemn others who are different, with complete self-righteousness.

  • People who marry and happen to be the same sex should be married by Elvis impersonators.

  • People who don't care one way or the other, can get married anywhere they want.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]
  • gay rights are human rights (4.27 / 11) (#399)
    by S0rahl on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 09:20:13 AM EST

    and that is why I am always amazed when people start this whole respectful let's see it from all sides discussion. In The Netherlands, no church can marry anyone, neither can the synagogues or any other temple. They can only bless the marriage that was earlier confirmed by the state. This allows us a neutral marriage for everyone. To be exact, all couples consisting of two Dutch adults. Any church may choose to allow the blessing of any marriage or not, that is the exclusive province of that church. I have no issue with that. Now, should we call this marriage? Well, if it looks like it, smells like it and behaves like it we can very well call it so. Furthermore, biblical marriage is nothing but the sale of a woman to another man. Do we really want that? No. The word 'marriage' has already decoupled from any first source. Maarten

    Netherlands (1.00 / 19) (#401)
    by tkatchev on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 09:57:46 AM EST

    Eurofag

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    obvious answer (4.00 / 3) (#405)
    by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 10:54:14 AM EST

    Gay rights are human rights only if you've already decided that gay rights are human rights. There's nothing intrinsic about a civil society focing one to promote gay (or straight) rights.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    Disgust, moral views and 'rights'... (4.00 / 4) (#443)
    by John Allsup on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 04:53:12 AM EST

    It's a thought, but many people these days view things such as paedophilia with the kind of disgust that gays were viewed with in the past.  Is it only a matter of time before people start chanting 'paedophile rights are human rights' etc. etc. etc.
    What we view as disgusting/wrong/should-be-punished-by-law may not be viewed in the same way by other generations.

    One of main concern with the 'rights movements' of our age is what their successes can be used for.  Many pieces of legislation put through to assure certain 'rights' will have other unforseen and undesirable consequences.

    One needs to think about what is needed, what is the current position, how we get there and what the long term consequences of making various changes will be, in detail, before making decisions based on idealism.  (Giving 'gay rights' because 'it's right' is idealism, doing so because it makes sense in the current climate is a whole different reason, and probably a far better one.  The latter does not give so much weight to other 'it's a right cause we think/believe so' arguments. The former, however, gets things totally hung up on right/wrong/belief/etc.)

    [ Parent ]

    wow (none / 0) (#446)
    by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 04:26:36 PM EST

    Richard Posner, on our humble website?
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    You might be interested to know (4.00 / 4) (#413)
    by Pluto on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:30:35 PM EST

    In America, the laws are very nearly the same, regarding marriage:

    "...no church can marry anyone, neither can the synagogues or any other temple. They can only bless the marriage that was earlier confirmed by the state. This allows us a neutral marriage for everyone."

    Anyone who wants to get married in the US, must get a marriage licence from the government. A this point, they have been entered into the legal machine that will oversee their divorce.

    Now just about anyone (who has a notary license) can marry two people. Priests and ministers are nice, but if I had it to do again, I'd use an Elvis impersonator.

    When the Federal "getting married" law (such as it is) was written hundreds of years ago, the authors forgot to make it illegal for people of the same sex to do it.

    Therefore, the current freak-out is about some homophobic "christian" lawmakers (soon to be up for re-election) scrambling to outlaw state-sanctioned same-sex marriages (read corn-holing) so their names will be recognized come voting time.
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    Netherlands (1.21 / 14) (#418)
    by tkatchev on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 02:16:24 PM EST

    Eurofag

    Keep votin' me down, retard. This is what "freedom of speech" is all about.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Sounds good to me! (5.00 / 2) (#465)
    by iso on Mon Sep 22, 2003 at 03:15:08 PM EST

    This sounds like the best idea yet. Let's legally allow same-sex unions, call it "marriage" and then if any church (or person) doesn't want to acknowledge it, so be it. That way they can then be easily identified as the bigots they are.

    [ Parent ]
    What about going to other countries? (none / 0) (#484)
    by DodgyGeezer on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:23 PM EST

    Problems arise when travelling to other more small-minded countries, as this story highlights.

    [ Parent ]
    Data on GLB partner health care costs? (3.66 / 6) (#407)
    by redelm on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 11:30:41 AM EST

    On the financial side, one argument against same-sex marriage is spousal health care costs, often covered in the US by insurance through employment. If GLB partners have outsized costs, straights will oppose it since they don't want increased costs. Particularly not to subsidize or support a lifestyle many find repugnant.

    Note this argument applies only to the US. Canada and Europe have socialized medical systems not dependant on employment or spousal status. Perhaps this has made same-sex marriages more acceptable there.

    There is a prejudice of GLB people having high health care costs due to AIDS and other STDs. But where is the data to support this preconceived notion? It will persist if not dispelled.



    excellent and workable solution (2.36 / 11) (#411)
    by PrinceVlad on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 01:16:21 PM EST

    This is why it will never work. It just makes way too much sense. The people who are pushing this don't want equal treatment under the law, they want to force others to change their moral views. It is just another assult on traditional values and American culture. Now I'm no great fan of American culture and as one who believes in polygamy would find your MCorp solution excellent and helpful. But the difference is I'm not some insecure bent person who's still got hurt feelings about being called sissy and fag boy in highschool and is now on some limp wristed campaign to change the world. Instead I'm a man who knows what he wants in life and is simply demanding my right of equal protection under the law. If that was all the same sex mariage people wanted then your solution would work and I'd even support it. But as many of your detractors have said they want to force a change in other people's beliefs but don't think others have the right to force them to change their beliefs or behaviour.
    I'm confident bordering on arrogant, my only saving grace is that I'm usually right.
    Simplifying to a fault. (4.20 / 5) (#431)
    by losthalo on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 05:49:21 PM EST

    (general reply to the discussion, though it applies to PrinceVlad as much as everyone else):

    For some it is about changing peoples' minds, for some it is just getting what everyone else gets (benefits-wise), etc. There are several overlapping sets of motivations for both supporters and detractors on this issue. Trying to boil it down to " The people supporting this want X" is pointless. Characterizing such a lagre group of people in such a general way probably says more about those who offer such arguments than about those being described by the arguments.

    "Rhetoric, Love-15"

    (Losthalo)

    [ Parent ]
    better idea (3.28 / 7) (#434)
    by codejack on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 06:41:29 PM EST

    why not simply do away with the legal institution of marriage altogether? not only does it solve the problem from both sides of the argument, but because of the necessary changes in tax filing, would also increase tax revenue!


    Please read before posting.

    Oh, you're so romantic! ;) (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#483)
    by DodgyGeezer on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 12:19:48 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Beauty products for all your drag needs (3.00 / 3) (#444)
    by kfhendricks on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 02:27:13 PM EST

    I think I agree with doing away with legal marriage
    anyway. I am even a christian, but I don't think
    government should regulate marriage. It is a
    covenant between two people and God.


    See my skin care and beauty products here:
    http://www.beautipage.com/esca pe2spa/

    Rights .. (none / 0) (#455)
    by UnForgiven on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 04:47:36 PM EST

    Well, what Gay people want when they ask for "same mariage rights" are the rights that the government gives marriede couples. Today, for example, after having spent the life together, one person dies. The other is thrown out of the house, and it is sold by the state. The living person can not normaly inherit what the other person owned. Another thing is taxes, today, gay people living together don't get any tax cut as maried couples. The list is realy quite long, mostly things people consider "normal" rights of people living together.

    [ Parent ]
    And if you're not religious? (5.00 / 2) (#480)
    by DodgyGeezer on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 10:44:28 AM EST

    "[Marriage] is a covenant between two people and God."

    And if you're not religious?  At this time two heterosexual people who aren't religous but in a civic union are still described as being married.  Perhaps this is because you can't tell from the outside.  Gay people though can almost be considered a visible minority and thus it's easier to spot them and apply such restrictions.  Not applying to heterosexual people who aren't religious is a double-standard, hypocritical and reminiscent of ostriches and sand.

    The word has transcended its religious meaning and has become more generic.  Language changes.  With religion becoming less significant in the western world (I come from the UK, now one of the least Christian western countries) words used historically for social description can no longer be assumed to be religious as our use of the language hasn't changed but our religious beliefs and behaviour has.

    To most people, the word marriage is synonymous with both civic AND religious unions.  From this perspective whether a couple are same sex or not makes no difference.  Religious people are somehow conveniently overlooking the fact that civic unions are already called marriages throughout society when it comes to gay people.

    [ Parent ]

    The sanctity of marriage (5.00 / 2) (#477)
    by DodgyGeezer on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 09:06:01 AM EST

    These religious types seem to go on about the sanctity of marriage and how it is a religious union.  Well, there are plenty of unreligious heterosexual unions, so surely they shouldn't be called "married" either.  This seems like a hypocritical double-standard and highlights the real reason for opposing same-sex unions: small minded bigotry.

    Here in Canada the religious people seem to want to bar same-sex unions from being called a marriage, but will allow them to be called a civic union.  Well I have a good idea for you: bar the use of marriage altogether and force these people to refer to themselves as being in a religous union.  The preposterousness of this suggestion should bring home to these religious people how offensive their position is and how their attitude demeans others - how would they like to be treated as a lesser entity?

    Finally, I fail to see how extending rights to gay people impacts religious people.  Nobody is telling them that they have to change their lives.  Nobody is forcing them to do anything (other than being less bigotted).  However, they are trying to force their views on others.  They are trying to exert control over the lives of others, both of which I find wrong and offensive.  Do as you do, but harm none.  Keep government secular.  I have a view that I feel needs to be exerted on religious people: society is changing and religion is becoming less important - get used it!

    BTW, I'm in a heterosexual marriage, and I marriage in a church.

    It's simple (4.20 / 5) (#481)
    by DJTiesto on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 11:50:18 AM EST

    There are 2 types of marriage.  A religious cerimony, and a legally recognized one.  That is why when you have your walk down the aisle in the chapel thing, you still have to go file papers.

    Any church should be allowed to set any criteria they want for their ceremony since they are a private organization.  This is good because the religious ceremony is essentially worthless anyways.

    The legal marriage is state-endorsed and therefore should not be subject to discrimination.  This is the important marriage, the one that defines tax benefits, insurance benefits, and other stuff like that.  I can't see how it makes a difference if we are talking about 2 penises, 2 vaginas, or a combination thereof.

    Exactly! (4.50 / 3) (#493)
    by bblaze on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:13:45 PM EST

    Religions can do whatever they want, but's there's a big legal component to marriage.  A legality like that can't be denied to anyone.

    Tollis lintea neglegentiorum. Hoc salsum esse putas? Fugit te inepte: quamvis sordida res et invenusta est est. - Catullus
    [ Parent ]
    flaws in most religions... (none / 2) (#495)
    by irdum on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 02:27:20 AM EST

    is that they don't believe in human rights... what they do believe is that anyone whose not part of their religion they deem inferior and assert everything in their power to eradicate them. With 6 billion people on this planet, there are some who go beyond every traditional values just to be themselves and fuck it up for everyone else, nobody cares what they think, nobody cares to listen to them, until they step out of line. I'm describing the very few who act this way through instinct. Sure some people say they are born as a homosexual/bi-sexual. Solution is face the fact, there's 6 billion mindless zombies on this planet most people refer to as humankind, let's embrace each other even the minority, because it's the minority that fucks it up for everyone else. If we embrace each other and accept everyone for who they are instead of what they are then we could just perhaps live in a happier society without the minority feeling isolated or the superior feelings obsolete. But let's be realistic here, everyone just pop a cap in people you hate until one day we wake up and find all our friends gone. That day will be the day we look towards saving the planet as a whole for the future generation, and hope they can do something worthful with their pityful lives, instead of something worthless with their pityless lives.
    It takes a crisis to bring about a change in attitudes.
    Same Sex Unions (none / 0) (#500)
    by jesusreligion on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 10:35:35 PM EST

    I can't get this to fit in my head. It's insanity to me, although I do not mind people who choose the gay lifestyle...but marriage? Please...
    LC
    Same sex unions: Differences and Resolutions | 501 comments (468 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!