05-03-2004 18:02									#91
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I'm not. Nor do I hold it against you, your position on these matters. Nor do I condemn you for betraying your religion, as you seem quite eager to do for me.

Condemn you.... Huh... I will restate it again... your WHOLE problem with gays marriages is the fact that your religion (and I don't care what it is) is anti gay. You have stated in tons of threads that gay marriages will effect traditional marriages and have an impract on them... And I'm only saying that that argument is an empty one... and that if married couples let what other people do effect their lives, they shouldn't be married, because they dont' really love each other if something like that would change their relationships.

quote: I don't think I've ever brought your religion into these arguments, while everytime you bring in mine.

And I will continue to since you still haven't come up with a single logical argument against gay marriages except for lame it will effect traditional marriages or other such nonsense that you offer no support for. Your anti gay marriage bias is purely religious based, and therefor the real issue. And I have stated a million times in the past... NO PROBLEM. Just admit it... and stop raising arguments that make no sense. At least be truthful instead of lamely trying to justify it some other way... which you have failed to do, over and over again.

quote: Not really my point. I don't EVER say that your marriage will fall apart, or even the one that I hope to have as a result of these changes. Rather, I have been asking for a good reason put forth to allow gay marriage.

No... you never said my marrriage... but you have stated repeatedly that it will have an effect on tradtional marriages... and I continue to respond... NO WAY, not if it is a solid marriage. You seem to imply that it will cause breakups and problems in other peoples marriages...

One more time... a good reason.... REMOVE DISCRIMINATION... PROVIDE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY...
To give EVERYBODY the RIGHT to make a commitment to spend their lives together and have the state award them the same rights as any other couple. Marriage is NOT something soley restricted to churches and religion... and again.... not all religions can agree on this subject.

quote: And why should I only be able to speak out on issues that can be shown to have a direct effect on me? Moral issues are moral issues.

FINE... no problem... but at least be honest and state the real reasons you are against it instead of the lame not supported it will effect regular marriages, or the other garbarge points you bring up. I have no problem with you saying gay relationships are against your religion... FINE (we all know it anyway it) and simply state that they shouldn't be allowed because you don't believe in them... While I don't know or care what religion you actually are... i'm sure honesty is probably a key law

quote: He also says to spread his Gospel. Christians are supposed to live out their life in Christ, and part of mine means that I stand up for what I believe to be right.

Fine... STAND UP FOR IT... state your HONEST VIEWs... and don't continue to hide behind falsehoods... But again... leave the judging up to our Lord

	05-03-2004 20:25									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom So am I, Funny bunny. So's the gay priest and his bishop I knew (not in the kenobist fashion of 'knew').

My family is Catholic too -- I was joking with my "shocked" reaction.

	05-03-2004 20:27									#93
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I don't think I've ever brought your religion into these arguments, while everytime you bring in mine. How fair is that?

If you're going to use your religious/theological rationale for your homophobia, of course other people will refute your arguments using your religious/theological methods because . . . . . . that is what you used.

	05-03-2004 23:50									#94
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Ming:

quote: leave the judging up to our Lord

Actually, you are wrong on that... from Paul, 1st Corinthians.

1 Cor 5:9-12

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[1]


So if you wish to make your religion an issue, then I can judge you by the conduct you ought to uphold.

Mr. Fun:

quote: If you're going to use your religious/theological rationale

Have I been using religious/theological rationale for my position?

	05-03-2004 23:57									#95
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: And I'm only saying that that argument is an empty one... and that if married couples let what other people do effect their lives, they shouldn't be married, because they dont' really love each other if something like that would change their relationships.

So all those people who got divorced when the divorce law changed ought not to have been married, because they saw their own marriage in a new light, when they had another option?

Should all those who have gotten divorced not been married in the first place? That's 50% of marriages, Ming.

I think all marriages, to some degree are influenced by the actions of those around them. We cannot get away from that.

quote: REMOVE DISCRIMINATION... PROVIDE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY...

Again, some forms of discrimination are good. I would argue that this is one of them, because society derives many benefits from a marriage between a man and a woman, not only in children, but also between the spouses.

quote: Marriage is NOT something soley restricted to churches and religion

Agreed. I argue from the benefits to society, not from religious teachings.

	06-03-2004 00:11									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi ...or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. Have I been using religious/theological rationale for my position?

So you don't know any overweight people? No fat friends? Noone who gets a little tipsy at Christmas?

Et cetera, et cetera....

But didn't you say in another thread you weren't meant to judge people 'spiritually' when I brought up the 'let he who is without sin' bit of Christian moral relativism?

In which case, what on earth are you doing opposing civil (non spiritual/religious marriages) for gay men and lesbians?

'Render unto Caesar'- presumably, unless you the Christian, disagree with it, in which case cherry pick bits of bible to use as your rationale for disagreeing.

More to the point- how can you live in a country whose head of state is a woman, and belong to a party that might elect a woman as its head?

'Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.'

I Timothy, 2:12

	06-03-2004 00:15									#97
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Agreed. I argue from the benefits to society, not from religious teachings.

So you say. But honestly, I (and, it appears, Ming) don't believe you. Your arguments re: social benifit are a poorly conceived and unsubstantiated* veil for your real reason for your position: that your religion tells you gay sex is immoral.

* What particular benifit does society derive from a male-female marriage that it does not from a male-male or female-female union? Children? Sure, but if the idea is to provide benifits to parents, the benifits should be tied to having children, not just getting married. Not to mention that there are lots of children that need adoption, so the inability of gay couples to actually produce children doesn't bother me. FURTHER, and perhaps most importantly, surely you understand that a gay person is not going to produce children ANYWAY. Having a law against gay marriage in no way effects the birthrate. I'd say that dispenses with the children angle.

Ok, moving on, what other benifits does society get from a hetro marriage that it doesn't from homo marriage? I don't see any in particular.

Your position is founded on your religion, Ben. Covering it up by trying to argue this "benifit to society" angle isn't fooling anyone.

-Arrian

	06-03-2004 00:20									#98
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So all those people who got divorced when the divorce law changed ought not to have been married, because they saw their own marriage in a new light, when they had another option?

YEP... they obviously didn't belong married. It's good that divorce gave them the option to get out of an unloving and bad relationship.

quote: Should all those who have gotten divorced not been married in the first place? That's 50% of marriages, Ming.

Yep... they obviously didn't belong married. It's good that divorce gave them the option to get out of an unloving and bad relationship.

quote: I think all marriages, to some degree are influenced by the actions of those around them. We cannot get away from that.

Some degree... yes. But if that fact that gays can get married makes you totally rethink your marriage... than you probably shouldn't be married.

quote: Again, some forms of discrimination are good. I would argue that this is one of them, because society derives many benefits from a marriage between a man and a woman, not only in children, but also between the spouses.

yep... I cans see how you would see discrimation against people you consider sinners good I would argue that society derives many benefits from any GOOD marriage... because you have happier and more stable people. As far as you bringing children up again... don't do so again until you start advocating that ALL people that aren't planning to have children should be discriminated against as well

quote: Agreed. I argue from the benefits to society, not from religious teachings.

yet you have been unable to quantify a single benefit.

	06-03-2004 00:36									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar I wouldn't. There was a period in American history where another class of citizens was opressed, or hated, by the American people....If it had been a states rights issue then, they would still be opressed

Okay... so now we're bringing up slavery? Give me a break! Federalism is not some optional thing that decide to use and not to use when we feel like it, it's something that needs to be protected or else the national government will begin dictating too many things to localities when the national government doesn't realize it can't make blanketed statements.

If Texas wants to make an anti-gay-marriage law, let them, then have California, who doesn't mind, add to its civil unions laws and let them have what they want. The Civil Rights issues due to the Civil War Amendments, should have been taken care of by the courts long before they were, but forcing the regions from the national level like what happened didn't make any of the resentment go away, it only made it worse, IMHO.

I'm still wondering where the No Gay Marriage Act or whatever it is can be passed by Congress... what power are they saying it's tied to? Commerce?



You know the conversation has degenerated when Bibilcal Scriptures are starting to be referenced. When will people realize they aren't supposed to be taken literally?

quote: Originally posted by Ming YEP... they obviously didn't belong married. It's good that divorce gave them the option to get out of an unloving and bad relationship.

Wouldn't it have been better if they'd not gotten married at all? I'd rather see a lot more hoops for everybody to jump through to get married than for just gays to have to balance 'balls' on their heads. (Pun intended. )

The only form of discrimination that is good is the economic discrimination that states lets price control demand so people only get what they need. (Thus why some things most certainly need to be re-rationed such as social health insurance in the US.)

	06-03-2004 00:41									#100
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by FlameFlash You know the conversation has degenerated when Bibilcal Scriptures are starting to be referenced. When will people realize they aren't supposed to be taken literally?

Isn't 'people' a plural noun? You should try a singular then: we only have one fundamentalist believeing in the literal quotation of scripture (and dozens of anti-fundies who enjoy quoting scripture for the sake of poking the fundie )

	06-03-2004 00:44									#101
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Che & Kontiki? Then how do you explain society's interest in the preservation of marriage?

That's not what you asked. You asked if there is a benefit to keeping marriages between one man and one women. If you want to ask if society benefits from marriage in general, then my answer would change. But you didn't ask that.

As for my rationale, I laid it out clearly in another thread which you responded to, so you've acknowledged (granted, not necessarily agreed with) it. Ming and Arrian basically covered it off in this thread anyway. Bottom line - your position would only make sense if it were a zero sum game. If making gay marriages legal meant taking some of the benefits away from straight marriage, you'd have something to argue. But it doesn't, so you don't.

	06-03-2004 00:52									#102
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor ...for the sake of poking the fundie )

Now there's an unpleasant image.

Amish Porn- it's the one involving farm implements and machinery, and where the models put on more clothes before they have sex.

In the dark.

	06-03-2004 01:01									#103
	Tired of ads?

Just to test the anti-Ben "consensus" which seems to endorse the view that marriage and discrimination in favor of man-woman childrearing are separate issues, how would you feel about a child deduction or credit that could only be taken by a man and a woman filing a joint tax return?

	06-03-2004 01:13									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ned,

You mean instead of whatever benifits married people get now, replace it with a child deduction credit?

Yes, I would be for that, although I think I'd like to see it capped at a certain number of children. Say... 3 or 4. I'm not sure about that last bit at all, though.

-Arrian

	06-03-2004 01:27									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Isn't 'people' a plural noun? You should try a singular then: we only have one fundamentalist believeing in the literal quotation of scripture (and dozens of anti-fundies who enjoy quoting scripture for the sake of poking the fundie )

Here we only have one, but you wouldn't believe how many there were in the town I graduated HS from.

quote: Just to test the anti-Ben "consensus" which seems to endorse the view that marriage and discrimination in favor of man-woman childrearing are separate issues, how would you feel about a child deduction or credit that could only be taken by a man and a woman filing a joint tax return?

After watching my wife recover from a c-section and then vaginal birth I would say that that pain certainly is enough to reward a man-woman couple such.

The woman alone could also do it, while two men who have adopted a child can still claim the child as a dependent but have not gone through the physical stress and risked their lives in giving birth to said child.

Now a lesbian couple I could see also being allowed to have such a credit. (Here I'm thinking EIC, which, if I was a single father, I would still get, but if two gay men didn't earn enough, they shouldn't have been able to have adopted the child in the first place due to financial restrictions.)

	06-03-2004 01:28									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Ned, You mean instead of whatever benifits married people get now, replace it with a child deduction credit? Yes, I would be for that, although I think I'd like to see it capped at a certain number of children. Say... 3 or 4. I'm not sure about that last bit at all, though. -Arrian

No cap, if they can afford the kids then why not be allowed to have them?

If they can prove they can afford the kids within, say the time it takes for the kids to enter public school ~5 years, then also allow them.

	06-03-2004 02:33									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No cap, if they can afford the kids then why not be allowed to have them? If they can prove they can afford the kids within, say the time it takes for the kids to enter public school ~5 years, then also allow them.

I meant a possible cap on the DEDUCTIONS for the kids - the benifits. You seem to think I'm trying to restrict childbirth.

-Arrian

	06-03-2004 02:44									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Just to test the anti-Ben "consensus" which seems to endorse the view that marriage and discrimination in favor of man-woman childrearing are separate issues, how would you feel about a child deduction or credit that could only be taken by a man and a woman filing a joint tax return?

I have no problem at all for a child deduction or credit - in fact, I think it's a pretty good idea. I have a problem with the rest of it, though.

	06-03-2004 03:56									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

	06-03-2004 04:54									#110
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

I disagree... people above a "certain annual income level" are already paying higher taxes because of it.
They deserve the same break as everybody else that has kids.

	06-03-2004 05:53									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

Boris, but the point I am trying to make is whether society can judge that it is best for kids that they be raised in traditional families. Even if you disagree and would be in the minority on this issue if it were to come to a vote, would it be constitutional?

	06-03-2004 12:02									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned Boris, but the point I am trying to make is whether society can judge that it is best for kids that they be raised in traditional families. Even if you disagree and would be in the minority on this issue if it were to come to a vote, would it be constitutional?

Neddy poops- what is a traditional family?

And by this I mean, not what do you think a 'traditional family' is, nor what do the people who bang on about 'the traditional family' define it to be, but rather, what has constituted a family in the various different human cultures on the planet?

	06-03-2004 13:04									#113
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Molly, if you keep the issue of gay marriage focused on the right of two people to bond together and obtain the same rights to property and privileges that married folk normally have and keep the matter of kids completely out of the picture, you will get sympathy and support. Poo-pooing the family issue and contending that kids are not best raised with mom and dads in a stable, loving relationships can only alienate people otherwise inclined to support you. Almost everyone is convinced (at least here in America) that raising kids in traditional familes is best.

	06-03-2004 13:09									#114
	Inflate your Upload Space

And the arrogant, narrow-minded belief that kids raised by two parents are somehow superior to kids raised by single parents will alienate adults who were raised as children, by single parents -- not to mention alientating people who have the common decency to respect those who are different from them.

	06-03-2004 13:33									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Poo-pooing the family issue and contending that kids are not best raised with mom and dads in a stable, loving relationships can only alienate people otherwise inclined to support you. Almost everyone is convinced (at least here in America) that raising kids in traditional familes is best.

Ned- none of what you have said has gone towards defining what constitutes a ‘traditional family’, nor does it show that such a concept represents either the majority of families in the United States, or indeed outside of the United States.

‘Traditional family’ is one of those vague and meaningless terms such as Obi Gyn’s ‘gay lifestyle’, which is readily used, yet on further investigation is revealed to have no useful definition, save that wished by the user at the time.

A specific American cultural ideal does not represent all of humanity, nor does it even accurately reflect the whole of contemporary or past American history and experience.

Consider that the ‘traditional family’ in American history has differed from rural locales to urbanized areas, where industrialization and large scale manufacturing meant the dislocation and breaking up of family groups. Men and women might be separated after marriage, or necessity required that children be brought up by grandparents, or neighbours, or lodged with childminders, or abandoned.

One definition of family included servants- would you consider that a traditional American family?

In any case, lesbians and gay men, however much we may wish to be, are not immaculate conceptions: I have parents, a brother, and my partner has parents, brothers, a sister, nieces, nephews, cousins, and so on.

The notion that gays and lesbians exist outside society is erroneous, as is the idea that we are not families.

	06-03-2004 14:07									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi 1. Are there any benefits that society derives from keeping marriage as one man and one woman?

No. At least I've never seen even one valid benefit articulated (I don't count "keeping bigots happy" as a benefit to society).

quote: Again, just because we do not know the effects of an action, does not justify the action. One would anticipate that a good reason should be put forth to do the action in the first place.

Well, many posters have put forth quite a few reasons, but you just choose to repeatedly ignore them.

For starters, ending pointless legal discrimination seems like quite a good reason in and of itself.

So does allowing people currently barred from marriage to officially celebrate their unions. Their happiness should count for something (I know you don't care about their happiness, but many do). After all, they are tax-paying members of society, too.

Moving some of the 100,000 kids stuck in institutions awaiting adoption into loving families strikes me as an obvious benefit to society as well.

Why am writing this? In the next thread, you will just ignore this reponse (and any other relevant response), as is your practice.

	06-03-2004 14:10									#117
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Molly, if you keep the issue of gay marriage focused on the right of two people to bond together and obtain the same rights to property and privileges that married folk normally have and keep the matter of kids completely out of the picture, you will get sympathy and support. Poo-pooing the family issue and contending that kids are not best raised with mom and dads in a stable, loving relationships can only alienate people otherwise inclined to support you. Almost everyone is convinced (at least here in America) that raising kids in traditional familes is best.

Ned, I am repeatedly struck by your indifference toward children being raised in institutions. It makes me wonder how much you really care about children on our society.

How many children have you adopted? Why are you so intent on stopping others who want to give them loving homes?

Shame on you, Ned.

And shame on you for declaring that gay families are somehow not families. Gay people are loving humans, just like everyone else.

	06-03-2004 18:19									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In Ned's sort-of defense, it's hard to argue that two parents aren't better for a child than one, MrFun. I don't think it makes them "superior" to single-parented kids, but it's certainly a more stable environment. With that said, I don't see why two gay guys shouldn't be allowed to adopt-I've never heard of any studies done that suggest being raised by gays screws kids up.

	06-03-2004 19:15									#119
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Who were the 3 that voted no? I know Ming did, but who were the others? (I voted yes of course.)

	06-03-2004 22:13									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Who were the 3 that voted no? I know Ming did, but who were the others? (I voted yes of course.)

Please remember that my no vote is based on that I don't think we need to rename things to "civil unions" just to keep the religious people happy.

I believe gays have the right to get "married" and aquire the same rights and benefits as other married people. If certain religions have no wish to perform such ceremonies... fine.. but that they shouldn't be allowed to stop people from doing so... and that religions don't have monopoly on the term marriage.