30-01-2004 13:20									#151
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi It sifts out the loves. I can love my grandmother, but it doesn't mean I want to have children with her. If I want to have children with someone, then I marry her. If I care about someone, but do not want children, I stay friends with her.

What about those couples who love each other, but who don't want to have children for whatever reasons? Should they be forbidden to marry too?

	30-01-2004 21:32									#152
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Intent, not result is the important issue.

You didn't just jump off that cliff Asher led you to, you drove right off it at 100 mph in a truck that was on fire.

If "intent to procreate" is such a defining factor of marriage, then I suppose in your eyes that my grandfather's second marriage, which didn't even begin until both he & his wife were well into their 60s (his first wife, my grandmother, died from burns suffered in a house fire), is illegitimate? Clearly, there's no intent nor ability to procreate there.

	30-01-2004 21:35									#153
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I just have to clarify. Sex is not just about procreation. Love should also be incorporated. The combination of the two is what sex should involve. Lacking one element over the other is not quite right.

So post-menopausal married couples shouldn't have sex, because there is no chance of procreation?

	30-01-2004 21:40									#154
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Geez, what a cross-post, based on different posts pages ago... excellent work, optimus!


Incidentally, it just busts my **** up that Ben seems to have such difficulty separating romantic love from familial love... marry his grandmother, indeed.

	30-01-2004 21:50									#155
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Ming: 1) It cheapens the institution of marriage. Sure. Suppose you grew up, as I did in a family where the mom and dad were married, and stayed together all the while you lived with them. Now, change the situation, with one family, where you have a divorce. Marriage for you is going to have a very different meaning to the family broken up by divorce, as it would to the family that stayed together. Suppose the man with the family who broke up met a very nice woman. Do you think that he will be as quick to marry, considering the troubles in his own family? He will be more likely to avoid marriage, associating the term with strife, rather than happiness. So yes, the decisions of other people will effect the way marriage is valued in society. We see the same in all the arguments how Britney Spears cheapens marriage by asking for an annullment immediately after getting married. Anything outside of the ideal tarnishes the ideal. 2) Marriage is meant for having children/family and that wouldn't be the case for gays. Point in keeping. Marriage is about both love and commitment, and starting a family. If you can't have kids, because one of you is infertile, that is not the fault of either partner. However, this is not the case with homosexuals. 3) Effecting the birth rate seems to have come up... One of the benefits society derives from marriage. A civil defense of marriage , relies on these benefits. 4) Since gays aren't necessarily getting married to have/adopt children, they don't need the special legal rights that are granted to those that do. I agree. Marriage is not just about having a family. However, marriage still includes the assumption of a family, alongside a desire to love and take care of each other. A daughter, who lives at home, taking care of her father and mother, for her life, is she considered married to the two? No.

Ben, you still don't get what marriage is about. It's not about some sanctimonious institution. It's not about having a family. It's nott about the "value" of the institution. It's not about tradition.

Marriage is a statement of love. It's two people saying they love each other so much that they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other. Yeah, sometimes the dream doesn't work, but that's not the point. At the time that they get married, they love each other so much that they can't imagine a life without the other person.

So if two men or two women love each other so much that they want to declare their love by getting married then they should be allowed to.

To deny them that right of expressing their love is simply stupid. To say no you can't marry the other person is simply hatred.

And the thing that gets me is how could any Christian deny love.

	31-01-2004 00:30									#156
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Are you saying that clergy and congregations from Christian churches in Canada who want to perform marriage ceremonies for gays are not committed Christians? Not Catholic, or Orthodox maybe, but how do you get not Christian?

No, but Christians whose belief system prohibits homosexuality cannot just dump those beliefs. Liberalism pretends that they can just lay them aside or that we can just ignore them when in fact Liberalism cannot really tolerate the intolerant without betraying its own principles.

Or to put it another way: Liberalism likes to pretend that it is "value free" and does not discriminate against religious belief. But it does - according to Liberalism, universalist beliefs about the wrongness of homosexuality are "bad beliefs" since they express a desire to overturn liberalism itself.

The conflict between a liberal state and fundamentalist beliefs cannot be reconciled, no matter how much we praise religious freedom.

	31-01-2004 04:02									#157
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: This an issue for the two people in the ceremony, the church they are standing in, the clergman who is performing the ceremony, and God or whatever divinity they wish to relate to.

So why have civil marriage at all, if marriage is of no concern to the state?

quote: How exactly is it your concern if neither you nor your church is involved?

I plan to get married someday.

	31-01-2004 04:07									#158
	Got spare money?

quote: For the record, what I think should happen is marriage should be removed completely from the law, replaced with domestic partnerships. Marriages can be performed by the churches that wish to, and those heterosexual couples and homosexual couples alike can obtain a domestic partnership certificate instead. What would you say to that, Ben?

Asher:

It's one of the options in front of parliament. The problem with this is that society would no longer be able to provide benefits to married couples.

I'd prefer this over the redefinition of marriage.

	31-01-2004 04:09									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: What about those couples who love each other, but who don't want to have children for whatever reasons? Should they be forbidden to marry too?

Depends on the reasons. If it's because of health concerns, then sure. If it's because they just don't want the burden of children, I'd say no.

	31-01-2004 04:11									#160
	Tired of ads?

quote: If "intent to procreate" is such a defining factor of marriage, then I suppose in your eyes that my grandfather's second marriage, which didn't even begin until both he & his wife were well into their 60s (his first wife, my grandmother, died from burns suffered in a house fire), is illegitimate? Clearly, there's no intent nor ability to procreate there.

No intent? Did he consummate his marriage? It's exactly the same as the young infertile couple, unable to conceive through no fault of their own.

	31-01-2004 04:18									#161
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Ben, you still don't get what marriage is about. It's not about some sanctimonious institution. It's not about having a family. It's nott about the "value" of the institution. It's not about tradition.

That's quite a few nots. Are you sure that marriage is not about tradition, about having a family?

quote: they love each other so much that they can't imagine a life without the other person.

So, I have friends who are like that. Doesn't mean I want to marry them.

quote: So if two men or two women love each other so much that they want to declare their love by getting married then they should be allowed to.

They don't just declare their love. They do quite a bit more. They can declare their love without getting married. Therefore, there is more to marriage than just love.

quote: To deny them that right of expressing their love is simply stupid. To say no you can't marry the other person is simply hatred.

Strong word, hate. Do you believe I hate gay people? Not all relationships should be recognised as marriage. It has nothing to do with the people, but everything to do with the institution.

quote: And the thing that gets me is how could any Christian deny love.

Do I deny that these people care for each other? No. Rather, I say that marriage is about more than just loving someone.

	31-01-2004 05:15									#162
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Depends on the reasons. If it's because of health concerns, then sure. If it's because they just don't want the burden of children, I'd say no.

I'll chime in with Arrian: I'm sure glad your vote doesn't count in my country

	31-01-2004 05:42									#163
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So yes, the decisions of other people will effect the way marriage is valued in society. We see the same in all the arguments how Britney Spears cheapens marriage by asking for an annullment immediately after getting married. Anything outside of the ideal tarnishes the ideal.

I'm sorry, but now you are just rambling and looking to support a weak point of view. If a couple loves each other... the child see's that... if they don't... yeah, it might effect the child's view of marriage when they grow up. But, the same situation is true if it's a traditional couple... or a gay couple. Just like the rest of your examples, it's the people involved. It's your tunnel veiw that is making the judgement that anything outside YOUR IDEAL tarnishes the ideal. I will grant that something YOU are personally and deeply against might effect YOUR view... but again, that's a personal view.

quote: Marriage is meant for having children/family and that wouldn't be the case for gays. Point in keeping. Marriage is about both love and commitment, and starting a family. If you can't have kids, because one of you is infertile, that is not the fault of either partner. However, this is not the case with homosexuals.

No... it's about love and commitment, and MAYBE starting a family. Many couples are married these days in the catholic church KNOWING IN ADVANCE they either can't have children or won't. The church has no problem with that... And having gone through the entire catholic wedding thing personally, I can tell you at NO POINT was I told or was it even implied that WE HAD TO HAVE CHILDREN or sign something saying we would have to have children for us to be married in the catholic church. The whole deal was about love and commitment. PERIOD. So again... you are just using a weak argument to support a very week position on your part.

quote: One of the benefits society derives from marriage. A civil defense of marriage , relies on these benefits.

HUH? Now you aren't making any sense at all... but then again, the birth rate has nothing to do with this issue so your answer is expected.

quote: Since gays aren't necessarily getting married to have/adopt children, they don't need the special legal rights that are granted to those that do.

BULL... there are special rights granted to married couples that have NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING A FAMILY... and married couples without children need those rights... so again... a lame excuse.

quote: I agree. Marriage is not just about having a family.

The first logical thing you have said... but it has nothing to do with why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married

quote: However, marriage still includes the assumption of a family, alongside a desire to love and take care of each other.

You keep making this untrue statement. The key to marriage is the love and commitment. There is NO ASSUMPTION of a family...


So again... besides your religious beliefs, give me a logical argument... based on your previous responses... you can't. Because you know... there aren't any that aren't based in relgious beliefs or bigotry.

	31-01-2004 05:53									#164
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: If a couple loves each other... the child see's that... if they don't... yeah, it might effect the child's view of marriage when they grow up. But, the same situation is true if it's a traditional couple... or a gay couple.

I agree. Wouldn't a bigot argue only against gay marriage, and avoid the destructiveness of divorce?

quote: outside YOUR IDEAL

Well, marriage existed quite some time before I was born, so I could hardly be the author of this ideal.

quote: No... it's about love and commitment, and MAYBE starting a family.

And that does not differ from my position. No one can be sure whether they have children or not.

quote: Now you aren't making any sense at all

Okay. I need to be more clear. Start with the question of what benefits does society derive from marriage? I gave a long post to spiffor on this point, but did not get to the second half. One benefit has to do with procreation, in that marriage provides parents of both genders to take care of children. Granted, not all marriages do so, but many do.

Without marriage, would we see these same benefits?

	31-01-2004 06:06									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So, I have friends who are like that. Doesn't mean I want to marry them.

You should know that there are two different, underlying foundations for types of relationships -- platonic, and romantic.

You know full well that when we speak of two gay men who cannot imagine being apart, that this is in reference to a romantic type of relationship, rather than a platonic relationship.

I'm sure you're not that dense to not realize this distinction, without it being spelled out for you. So I'm assuming you're just deliberately distorting the issue through confusion.

	31-01-2004 06:08									#166
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Sorry BK... I don't see any logical reasons being provided by you. Just the same ole same ole... just religious knee jerk reactions and nothing based in real logic. And that is fine... but don't claim there is any logic involved, just call it what it is... your religious beliefs.

	31-01-2004 09:25									#167
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Asher: It's one of the options in front of parliament. The problem with this is that society would no longer be able to provide benefits to married couples.

What gives you that idea? The same benefits would be applied to "domestic partnerships" rather than "married people". This includes people who are married before the church, and also those who have not married before any church but registered their domestic partnership.

	31-01-2004 10:39									#168
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Sadly, I received no reply from Ben Kenobi, so please forgive me for the re-post.
==================================

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi You have precisely the same rights as I do, to marry a woman of your choice, should she also consent.

I can't believe anyone would would field this absurdity around here, not once ... but twice!

I gotta question for you:

Would you be satisfied if the gov't said you could marry anyone you wanted as long as he was a man? Do you think that you could, as you put it, "control your sexual urges" towards women, and instead take a man's hand at the altar? And enjoy that honeymoon? And set up a life-long love nest with him? Could you really do that? I'm not kidding here, I want to know.

quote: Therefore, gay marriage will reduce the birthrate.

Still rolling over this one. If only that were true, please, somebody, inform the leadership of China!

Seriously, do you think that if a couple is considering having kids, their decision will be influenced by whether or not lesbians can marry in their country?

quote: it is not like gay people cannot have children, they are fertile, but have chosen not to exercise these capacities.

You aren't aware that some gay people (male and female) sire children?

quote: Why is homosexuality biological?

Well, for starters, the animal world is rife with it, especially mammals. Hard to imagine that those male giraffes screwing each other are acting on something other than biological impetus.

quote: Rather than letting a small segment of society decide, be they judges or priests, let everyone have their say.

Basic civil rights should never, ever be decided through popularity polls.

And rights don't get much more basic than the right to marry, a right most would consider far more important than the right to vote.

Most Americans were against interracial marriage when it was legalized in 1967. Ben, do you think the US should have waited until the general population voted its approval before allowing interracial couples to wed?

	31-01-2004 12:20									#169
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So why have civil marriage at all, if marriage is of no concern to the state?

Recognising marriages is the business of the state. Christian marriages, Buddhist marriages, Muslim marriages, Shinto marriages, Animist marriages, Hindu marriages, and civil marriages... In short, that people get married is the business of the state, but under what God or in what church they got married is none of their Gosh-darned business.

We have marriages for every flavour under the sun. Do you have a problem with any of those? Do you have a problem with seniors getting married? The mentally challenged? Convicts? Why can everyone else get married with nary a whimper from your camp, but this issue brings out the rottweiler in you?

Is it because your dogma leads you to oppose it? Then I would ask what force your dogma should rightfully have over those who do not share it?

Are you arguing that fundamentalist Christian dogma should be the law of the land in Canada?

	31-01-2004 12:49									#170
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Agathon No, but Christians whose belief system prohibits homosexuality cannot just dump those beliefs. Liberalism pretends that they can just lay them aside or that we can just ignore them when in fact Liberalism cannot really tolerate the intolerant without betraying its own principles. Or to put it another way: Liberalism likes to pretend that it is "value free" and does not discriminate against religious belief. But it does - according to Liberalism, universalist beliefs about the wrongness of homosexuality are "bad beliefs" since they express a desire to overturn liberalism itself. The conflict between a liberal state and fundamentalist beliefs cannot be reconciled, no matter how much we praise religious freedom.

You have an interesting point, but...

No church or clergyman (person) is being forced to participate in same sex marriages, nor would they be. At the same time, it is not up to some Christians to accept or reject what is happening in the next Church on a matter of faith. It is simply none of their business.

Furthermore, Christians put aside their belief systems everyday when they emerge from their churches and homes to mingle with the rest of society, and sometimes within those churches and homes. So do Muslims. Our country does not accept stoning people for religious offences, nor for any other reason for that matter. Our country also does not allow for marriages to multiple people. The homosexual act, or state of being, itself is barred from being a basis for descrimination in employment, housing, and the delivery of goods and services, no matter what your religious views may be.

Now, I have proven your point for you I suppose, for Liberalism is a cruel mistress for the close minded and bigoted of society. It must be truely galling. Truely, intolerance will not be tolerated in general society.

However, Liberalism never has been value free. It is tolerance that is its core value (as it stands today), and I think that Canada is perfectly capable of finding the way towards respecting the views of Catholics, who will never be required to perform a ceremony for a gay or a divorced couple, while recognising the marriages of gay and divorced people in the United Church. Liberally, of course.