People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

Oy. Between the Supreme Court Texas/Sodomy decision and Strom Thurmond's death, I've actually had to spend the last couple days explaining to people that yes in fact, bigotry is bad. (Amongst other things they should have figured out on their own when they were five years old.)I'm too exhausted to keep going with it. Suffice to say, I'm with you. If someone else doesn't think bigotry is idiotic, they simply don't want to. No reasoned argument will change that.In summation: Hatred bad, me sleepy now.

quote:

---

You might actually question the purpose of marriage if not for religious ideals.

---

In the modern day? Plenty of reasons. For starters, under current law, if a gay man is his by a car and is on life support, his boyfriend of ten years can't visit him in the hospital.

quote:

---

Historically there have never been allowance for gay marriages. It never even featured as feasible.

---

Except for the Catholic Church, of course.

quote:

---

Problem lies with hospital policies, not marriage laws.

---

Not really. You can ask for an across the board change in policy of every situation where only immediate family is given certain privelidges, (insurance companies, hospitals, schools, etc) or you can say "okay, you're married." Shortest distance between two points.

quote:

---

References please...

---

The Catholic Church had a same-sex marriage ritual in the middle ages.Do a google for "adelphopoiesis."

quote:

---

So because of the legal status couples achieve when they become married, marriage thus discriminates against Gay couples because they cant get married and thus because of other institutes's discrimination, gay couples should thus be allowed to achieve this status?

---

Pretty much, yeah.Although it should be noted that the very fact that the government will recognize the validity of a heterosexual marriage but not a homosexual one (benefits aside) amounts to a violation of equal treatment under the law.

quote:

---

How about instituting a new title for gay couples, call it 'Partnership' , give them similar legal rights (or whatever those discriminating institutes feel they want to give to this new bond) and everyone will be happy.

---

Except that civil unions for heterosexuals are legal marriages. Presenting separate titles for each one opens a nasty legal door to unequal treatment under the law. The very fact that you point out "whatever those discriminating institutes feel they want to give" supports this. If it's a legally recognized marriage, same as heterosexual, the institutions can't cut them off without cutting everybody off.However, even if the treatment remains the same through and through for the two separate titles, I could have sworn the Supreme Court ruled a while back that separate was not equal.

quote:

---

Issue it seems is not with same-sex couples wanting to be married, but them wanted similar legal rights.

---

The good old false dilemna fallacy. Why can't they want both?Regardless... I hate to break it to you, but as it stands now, same-sex couples already have non-legally recognized marriage. It's real simple. Find a person willing to officiate, pledge life-long commital to one another, pour some champagne and serve some dip, and ba-boom. You are married without legal recognition.So yes, the legal battle is purely over legal rights. What else is any legal battle over?

quote:

---

Really Dan. That is from ONE book. A novel idea and must have been a best seller in the gay market. Maby he could have included reference to the 'gay gene' while he was at it. I'm sure if I wrote a book about Darwin actually rejecting the ToE in his last days, I could sell quite a few copies to creationists

---

You asked for a resource; now you have it.Do you want to argue against the ideas and reasoning contained in the resource, or should we assume you are not able to do so?

quote:

---

the first site I came across was some sort of semi porn site.. great

---

PORN?!?! ON THE INTERNET?!?!?SURELY YOU JEST, SIR!

quote:

---

So men and women should receive exactly the same rights ?

---

From the government? Yes, according to the constitution. 14th amendment. From private institutions? Morally, I think yes.

quote:

---

Perhaps we should sue insurance companies that have decided to offer lower car insurance to women as they are statistically more likely not to cause a car accident.

---

If I'm not mistaken, it was only recently that the courts said the insurance companies had to stop charging black customers more than white customers. If someone bothered to take the insurance companies to court over the man/woman issue, they'd certainly have a case.

quote:

---

Funny because insurance companies could use statistical analysis to compute their policies which might prove gay couples at a disadvantage or advantage. Putting everyone in the same boat isn't always the solution.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Hehe, why go to all the effort. Why even pledge life long commitment ? You dont need to spend the rest of your life with just that person.. indeed you can not be married a week later

---

Now I'm confused. Are you suggesting abandoning the institution of marriage?

quote:

---

'(Taft) called it ridiculous to claim that the church of Byzantium was blessing homosexual marriages at a time when church laws imposed two to three years' penance for homosexual activity and Byzantine civil law dealt with it as a crime to be punished by 'torture, castration and even execution.'

---

My God, contradictions in Christianity?

quote:

---

'Father Taft said the blessing - which makes two people who are not brothers adoptive brothers - reflects the Christian Byzantine cultural context in which close friendship ('philia' in Greek), especially between males, was a 'very high ideal'. The blessing was 'the Byzantine Church's attempt to bring this into the church's liturgical system.'

---

Doesn't really seem to be any evidential basis for this one.Nor can I figure out a way to say that two grown men are "adopting" one another without it sounding really gay.

quote:

---

Taft is not alone in his conclusions. Father Alkiviadis Calivas, professor of liturgy at Holy Cross Orthodox School of Theology, says ' . . . . there is no explicit or implicit thing about marriage connected with the blessing. And as for a homosexual blessing, certainly not. In the early Christian tradition this would be an abomination.'

---

Again, I understand that people disagree. They're not backing it up, but they disagree.

quote:

---

Paul Meyendorff, a theologian who teaches liturgy at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York, said the 'adelphopoiesis' blessing resembles the type of blessing used in adopting a child, which bonds family members together who aren't biologically related.'"

---

So... once again... two grown men are "adopting" one another?I don't wanna say that sounds gay, but......well, I can't think of a way to end that sentence.

quote:

---

You dont care to commit over whether moral or not ?

---

From my previous post:

quote:

---

From private institutions? Morally, I think yes.

---

I'd appreciate it if you'd read these. I do take the time to type them.

quote:

---

I think you missed my sarcasm.

---

No, I caught it. You just missed mine.

quote:

---

Your idea of marriage seems to be pitching up at a barbeque, getting your buddy Steve to be a witness and next moment you're married

---

No. I'm just suggesting that two people don't need the approval of the church or the government to commit their lives to one another. But for the government to offer benefits and privelidges to one set of marriages and not another (or even to recognize one set and not the other) is discrimination.

quote:

---

All Christian marriages nowadays have to be legal.

---

In order to be legally recognized marriages, yes. Tautology is fun!

quote:

---

Your response to all who falsify your sources ?

---

"Nu-uh" is not a falsification.

quote:

---

Funny how only 1 gay activist caught on to this homosexual behaviour

---

So only one person has written about it.Hurrah.

quote:

---

You actually really trying to convince us all that an organisation that has always considered homosexuality a sin, would engage in a ritual (wait Marriage) to actually Bless this. And not just one small church, as you stated this was common in the Catholic Church all throughout the middle ages... tad amusing really

---

I'm saying the rite was there. Not that it was used four times daily. And that perhaps even the initial intent of the religion wasn't as nuts about homosexuality as people seem to think it is now.In other words, the "always considered homosexuality a sin" is what I'm taking issue with.If that amuses you, then I hope you brought enough weed for everyone. I can't picture anyone being so easily amused without the aid of some sort of drug. [This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-11-2003]

quote:

---

i dont believe that being gay is 'ok'. i believe that it is the outcome of a broken mind, or sick mentality.

---

Well, that settles that. Pack it up and go home, people.