Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

Faith What makes you think heterosexuals are qualified for marriage by default given the number of heterosexual couples that end up divorced.Marriage does not depend upon the sexual orientation of a person but on their ability to compromise and work together with their partner to
deal with the lifelong changes and challenges that are not apparent to the single person.You can dearly love a person with all your heart ,be commited and caring and able to grow with them and still not have a succesful relationship because it requires the participation of two.Sexual orientation is a vanishingly small part of what is necessary to a good marriage over the entire course of couples lives.Furthemore, the guaranteeing of gays rights to marriage under the law cannot be of any consequence to heterosexual couples since it has no impact whatsoever upon the success or failure of their own marriage.That said the rights of gays to be free from distrust and persecution is something that must be accomplished in order for humanity to ever have any even meagre claim to civilization. You do not like gays ,fine,I do not like incoherent bigots but they have must have the same rights under the law as I do regardless. { a note here I am NOT equating you to the incoherent bigot}If I am appaled at something that is MY problem and my emotional response is under my control and not dependant upon the actions of others. We quite often forget about this shoertcoming of ours in our relationships but this is what the point of law is basically, to protect othesr and ourselves from ourselves.

I just felt the need to highlight that statement. Everyone can read it how they like. Yawn. See previous post. Well, partly because you're doing a piss-poor job of establishing that gay people are, in fact, unqualified for marriage. And partly because I have never once argued that we need gay marriage recognized as a social institution. The social institution of gay marriage already exists. Two people of the same sex routinely get up in front of their loved ones, promise to spend their lives together, and serve some champagne. Whether you choose to recognize it is entirely your concern; whether society recognizes it is society's concern.I think you should. I have my theories why you don't. Statements like "unequal as PEOPLE is exactly what I meant" suggest I'm probably right. But, as I say, it's your concern.However, whether society chooses to throw rice at a homosexual's wedding or not doesn't change the fact that the government is treating homosexuals unequally by granting certain rights to heterosexuals who get married, and not to homosexuals.Edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], : corrected bad tags

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

There is no use in calling people irrational simply because they do not share your opinions. Nor is there any use in declaring your opinions logical truths.Heterosexuals are allowed to enter into commited relationships with their lovers which give them certain privileges and rights. And there is no reason why homosexuals should be denied similar privileges if they are prepared to make the same commitment. A say in the medical treatment of their partner is one obvious example. Therefore any claim that homosexuals "lack the basic requirements for marriage" should be viewed with suspicion.Tradition is not a valid reason to maintain discrimination.Nor, in a secular state, is religious belief a reason for witholding a purely secular legal status.SO there is certainly room for disagreement with your declarations, evne though you declare them as unquestionable fact.

A GOOD marriage is a completely other subject than marriage per se. The qualifications for that would sharply reduce the number of the qualified. But I'm addressing only marriage as such, not a particular quality of marriage, and for marriage as such, heterosexual adults are qualified and homosexuals are not. That's just in the nature of reality.The impact on anybody's marriage in particular has never been the issue and is not a valid argument. It's the impact on society in how we regard the function of marriage that is the concern. People refuse to accept that it is marriage itself that is the concern, but it truly is the concern, not anybody's particular marriage, but the MEANING of marriage.Granting marriage to people who are not qualified for it is not going to do a thing for freeing gays from distrust and persecution. That's a complete Emperor's New Clothes argument.You have leapt to the conlusion that I "don't like" gays. That is not warranted by anything I have said. I have a close gay friend as a matter of fact, but that shouldn't need to be said. My opinions are strictly logical and political, and not personal.

And I did not call anyone irrational simply because they do not share my opinions. I am calling arguments irrational because they are in fact irrational, and my opinions are in fact being argued from logic and not from any personal feelings.I have not argued one thing from "tradition" or from "religious belief." Please review my argument. It is about logical qualifications for marriage.There are ways gays can legally arrange for certain rights that do not involve marriage, which only damages the whole meaning of marriage for everyone. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

what has this got to do with gay marriage? this could just as equally happen with a straight couple.

what? isn't the question simply 'who gets custody?' (answer: the most stable suitable partner)
or is it your view that the mother should always get custody of children in such a situation? regardless of her suitability?Edited by Creavolution, : forgot to put in quote..

I'm not interesed in arguing the size of the issue, lets just agree that it does exist.ABE: I don't want to argue about whether or not this is true. Let it be a premise. Nah, lets not stray away from the point of my argument.If we include same sex unions in the definition of marriage it opens up the laws for exploitation. I think we should keep the laws tighter than that but we don't have to limit the rights of gays. We need a new form of commitment to be invented (civil union or something) and then we can incorporate those into the existing laws. I don't like the idea of loosening up the laws to include gay marriages as literally "marriages". Its gonna screw shit up.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : to include quote from PaulK

Sorry, I simply don't see any problem and if you are unwilling to even discuss whether it exists, whether there really is a problem, I can see no merit to your assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What "reality" would that be then? How exactly is the position above "logically" derived?

You say that if poeple don't oppose DOMA then they are hateful bigots and there is no reason to oppose it other thatn being hateful. I've provided a reason and you are dodging it.Good day sir.

I've already gone over this but here it is again.We don't really see straight people doing this, do we? I, personally would not enter a bogus relationship with a girl but I would with a guy. If its allowed I think its gonna happen.

I don't think there is a need for any new kind of legal "commitment." I think existing laws for contractual obligations can be adapted. There are already laws by which we can designate people of our choice to act in certain capacities on our behalf for instance, and if we want to disown our natural families and choose our own heirs and beneficiaries there are ways that can be done too, I believe. There could be a legal "package" designed to lower legal fees and expedite the most common concerns of gays. There need be no particular relationship or "union" implied.

quote:

---

And I did not call anyone irrational simply because they do not share my opinions.

---

That is exactly what you did.

quote:

---

I have not argued one thing from "tradition" or from "religious belief." Please review my argument. It is about logical qualifications for marriage.

---

Logic in itself cannot give you "qualifications for marriage". Any such qualifications necessarily depend on your idea of "marriage" and if others have a different view than yours the problem is not in their logic. Message 137, Message 178 indicate that religious beliefs as the basis your view of homosexuality (a relevant issue)In Message 99 you refer to marriage as a "cultural institution" to argue against change, and I don't think that it is wrong to label that an appeal to tradiiton. After all, institutions can be changed, so why woudl calling something an institution help your case if you were not appealing to tradition ?And in Message 56 the appeal to tradition and religion is quite clear.

quote:

---

...the definition of marriage does not require the Bible. It is as old as history and as broad as all cultures on earth. The Bible happens to define it clearly enough..

---

(And I note that although callign others irrational you also argue that "Freedom of Religion" in the U.S>means that "a "Tyranny of the Majority" is acceptable if it is based on religion, which is quite the opposite of the truth).In short you insist that you concept of marriage is the only valid one, based on an appeal tp religon and tradition. And that is the whole of your argument.

quote:

---

There are ways gays can legally arrange for certain rights that do not involve marriage, which only damages the whole meaning of marriage for everyone.

---

I do to see how anyone could honestly make the claim in the last sentence. It certainly isn't true.

RickJB writes

quote:

---

How exactly is the position above "logically" derived?

---

Give it up. I've dealt with her kind before. They are completely logical on all things, they know everything there is to know, and the rest of us are dumbasses. I have to admit that I'm a logical fallacy freak, and her posts make my eyes wanna pop out.For instance, to her, it is completely logical to use an ancient holy book as a guide to legislate laws that govern everyone. Get the picture? And I wish you the best of luck if you decide to pursue this further.