07-03-2004 21:48									#181
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I dispute that sexual preferences are fixed. People can and do change.

And there's not one shred of scientific evidence to support this assertion. Overwhelming numbers of psychologists, psychiatrists, medical professionals, behaviorialists, etc. all agree that sexual preference is not something one can change.

And this contradicts what you've said before, when it was pointed out to you that statistically almost all homosexuals who underwent "conversion" reverted back to engaging in homosexual behavior. Your response to that was that of course their desires wouldn't change, they'd just be repressing them. So have you changed your story yet again?

	07-03-2004 21:58									#182
	Tired of ads?

Ming - I don't propose 'handing off' power to religions. Hell, as an atheist the last thing I want is for organised religion to have more power! In fact I support 'marriage' being ENTIRELY religious symbolism.

What I hear from the gay lobby is they want EQUAL (not separate and equal). This implies all the legal rights of any other 'couple'. A civil union requirement for ALL does this. This is not separate but equal but THE SAME. Whether your union is blessed in a Catholic Church, mosque, or local beer hall makes no difference to the civil legal rights. See? Otherwise we run the risk of forcing institutions to bless unions they disapprove of.

Molly - Read the briefs. Well written and argued but the source problem remains. Also, I obviously can't access the source material to see if I interpret the data the same way. Any chance you can direct me to the actual decisions made by the courts these briefs were presented to? Did the courts buy the arguments? What were the decisions?

edit: typos

	07-03-2004 22:18									#183
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Ming - I don't propose 'handing off' power to religions. Hell, as an atheist the last thing I want is for organised religion to have more power! In fact I support 'marriage' being ENTIRELY religious symbolism.

Uhhhh... you support "marriage" being entirely religious, but you aren't proposing "handing off" power to religions. Being married means something to a lot of people. The term itself carries powerful meaning... and not just to religious people. Again, why should ONLY religions have the power to marry people... There are many people (hetrosexuals and homosexuals) who want nothing to do with religion... so why should they settle for "civil union".

Governments (society) have been performing marriages for a long time. Why should that power be taken away and handed over exclusively to a bunch of religions who can't even agree on the subject. If people want to go to a religion and have their marriage blessed in the eyes of their god... fine... But many people just want to get married and want nothing to do with god. Why should the government FORCE people to go to religion to get married.

	07-03-2004 22:34									#184
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So my question to you, did the availability of divorce, in any way contribute to the breakup of their marriage?

Divorce gave them an out... the marriage was breaking up anyway. Maybe you believe that people should stay in hopeless and dead relationships... I don't.

quote: Yes, the difficulties are there, but does it make sense to say that all divorces only happen because of the difficulties in the marriages?

Yes... all divorces happen BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES... People don't get divorced when there are no difficulities.
You seem to be indicating that people get divorced simply because the option is there... NO... people get divorced because they see no other option.

quote: Many people stay in marriage through the rocky times. Heck, I would think those who stay learn how to work with these problems.

When people see hope... they can stick it out. And they do come out stronger for it. But many relationships have NO HOPE. And it's a good thing divorce gives them an option.

quote: Right. So all divorces break up unloving relationships. People are resourceful, when they really want to be, and can be very quick to give up, when they are not. They see divorce, and they think, what would be easier? Sticking together and patching things up, or to just start over?

You seem to be implying that divorce is easy... and many people with minor problems do it instead of trying to work things out. Divorce is NOT an easy decision to make... it is the last resort, not the first.

quote: One thing I've thought about, it may seem silly, but why would married people, if the definition changes, see marriage as monogamous? It's just about the love, not the sex.

Again... you seem to be implying that letting gays get married will make people change their own relationships.
ONE LAST TIME... ANYBODY THAT CHANGES THEIR OWN RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING, PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE MARRIED ANYWAY.

quote: Well, I consider everyone to be sinners. So that is not a good argument, Ming.

But you seem to say that some discrimination is good... as long is against people who's lifestyle you disagree with... What if religions were discriminated against... would you then say that some discrimiation is good if it was aimed at you? I don't think so

quote: What about bachelors? If we give financial benefits to married couples, why should they not also receive the benefits? After all, we can't discriminate against them for choosing not to have children.

Nothing is stopping them from being married. As you say, marriage brings benefits to society. Stable relationships make for happier and better people. You just don't want to give gays that right. Remember, stable relationships are good for EVERYBODY, not just people of your faith and beliefs.

quote: Family structure directly influences the income of the various family systems in which American children are being raised. Traditional nuclear families enjoy a median income of $48,000. Stepfamilies average an income of $45,900. Cohabiting couples subsist on a common annual wealth of $25,000. Divorced/Separated families live on approximately $18, 500 a year. Finally, never-married, single families exist on an annual income of $15,000

And the point of all of this?
Basically... it proves that being married is a good thing.
What does this have to do with allowing gays to get married.

But if you think these numbers mean something... you have proved yourself wrong with these figures. Cohabiting couples have less income. And you want gays to continue cohabiting and not get married... hurting the family structure. You should be screaming for them to get married to help the family... why aren't you

So you may have posted a lot of words... but as usual, you raise no logical argument, or provide any support for your position

	07-03-2004 22:49									#185
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ming - Last try. I'm taking power AWAY FROM religion. 'Marriage' will have ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL EFFECT. Civil unions, of which ALL may avail themselves is the only legally binding contract here. If this is not 'equal' enough then I can only assume that what you are really pushing for is symbolic recognition from groups (not the State) that won't/can't accept gay relationships. Symbolic or not, to hell with their beliefs.

	07-03-2004 23:12									#186
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

But it's not equal... the term MARRIAGE has powerful meaning. You are denying non religious people the right to get married. You are GIVING religions power, not taking it away. I am not pushing for symbolic recognition from groups other than the state. They already have that right and power. I don't want a matter of a lack of religious beliefs to keep a couple from getting married.

Again.. since you seem to be missing my point... Governments have been performing marriages for ages and so have religions... I don't want the exclusive power to perform marriages in only the hands of religion... since not all people believe. You want to give them that exclusive power... so you aren't taking power away from them at all.

	07-03-2004 23:19									#187
	Remove this text

Denying non-religious.... WTF?

Tell me.....What power am I giving them? I'm atheist, therefore my rights are abbrogated b/c the Catholic Church won't marry me?

You want more than you are being honest about.

	07-03-2004 23:20									#188
	Remove this text

Ming - marriage may have a powerful SOCIAL meaning, but the government is completely blind to it.

	07-03-2004 23:20									#189
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Btw, it may surprise you to know that there are churches out there NOW that will 'marry' gay couples.

	07-03-2004 23:26									#190
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Gay Couple:

Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Straight Couple:

Step 1: Go church of their choice - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Please tell me where the inequalities are in this arrangement?

edit -

Atheist Couples:

Step 1: Skip as unnecessary
Step 2: Go to government office for legal Civil Union.
Step 3: Honeymoon

	07-03-2004 23:30									#191
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

In fact, since "married" would have no legal meaning, it would simply be a little certificate or something from a church, all that matters is:

1: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union.

Which is the same for everyone.

	07-03-2004 23:36									#192
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

No it's not the same. You are both giving the "exclusive" right to perform "marriages" over to religion. Why should non religious people not be allowed to be "married". You are both ignoring the important significance of the term "married".

Right now... the government does perform marriages, and has had that power for ages... and you want to take that right away and let them perform "civil unions" while allowing religions to be the only groups that can actually perform a marriage.

So no... it's NOT the same for everybody... non religious people (and not just gays) are being discriminated against. They would have to "settle" for a civil union. Why should they?

	07-03-2004 23:45									#193
	Increase the size of your Attachments

To the government, there IS no significance to the term "married", beyond a certain set of rights and privileges. Should the government also baptise people? As it is, only Christians can be baptised.

	07-03-2004 23:47									#194
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Who says you have to be married by a religion? If you really want to be married, I don't suggest making that exclusive to a religious group, only exclusive of the government. I have nothing against a "secular union society," or some such, marrying atheists off. I do have a problem with religious veneration being given to the government equivalent. Which is why I say they should have the power to confer legal rights, and leave the symbolism up to the people receiving those rights. It's not like we're setting up a dichotomy of "worships a god" vs. "respects the government."

	07-03-2004 23:48									#195
	Remove this text

Cut and paste and wait for an answer....

Gay Couple:

Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Straight Couple:

Step 1: Go church of their choice - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Please tell me where the inequalities are in this arrangement?

	07-03-2004 23:49									#196
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ming Again, why should ONLY religions have the power to marry people... Governments (society) have been performing marriages for a long time. Why should that power be taken away and handed over exclusively to a bunch of religions who can't even agree on the subject.

Ming, I think you are still hung up on the religious view of marriage that requires some "power" to unite two people.

Historically, marriages are formed by contract and society gives married couples certain rights and obligations by default. The only valid question we face is should the law extend these same rights and obligations to gay marriages.

	07-03-2004 23:56									#197
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Cut and paste and wait for an answer.... Gay Couple: Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married' Straight Couple: Step 1: Go church of their choice - get 'married' Please tell me where the inequalities are in this arrangement?

Yep... both get screwed, because they HAVE to go to a church to get married And that's what I'm arguing against... giving churches the exclusive rights to Marriages.

Some people seem to want to remove the government from performing marriages... Whether you agree that they should have the power or not... THEY ALREADY DO... and have had so for a very long time.

So to take that power away, YES, You are giving more power to religions.

There is a big difference in most peoples minds on the terms Civil Unions and Marriages. While you may argue that both will have the same rights and be the same, they aren't the same. PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED, not have a "civil union". The word MEANS SOMETHING to people...

	07-03-2004 23:56									#198
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Ming - Last try. I'm taking power AWAY FROM religion. 'Marriage' will have ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL EFFECT. Civil unions, of which ALL may avail themselves is the only legally binding contract here. If this is not 'equal' enough then I can only assume that what you are really pushing for is symbolic recognition from groups (not the State) that won't/can't accept gay relationships. Symbolic or not, to hell with their beliefs.

Wezil, your views and mine are very close on this subject. They differ only in the involvement of the state in solemnizing the marriage with some ceremony. I suggest you look at Kalifornia's new "domestic partner" legislation which gives domestic partners all the rights and obligations of married couples under the law by simple registration.

But Kalifornia still issues marriage licenses and conducts marriage ceremonies even though the procedure does nothing whatsoever substantively. Nothing!!!! People have equal rights either way. So why is the license and the ceremony required with the one and not the other. It makes no sense whatsoever.

However, the distinction is being driven by the defense of marriage act. It denies federal rights to gay marriages while permitting them for domestic partners.

The way this argument is evolving is a joke when one considers the substance of what is going on.

	08-03-2004 00:21									#199
	Support Apolyton

Damn you are being obtuse today Ming. Check the edit to my post where I included the steps for atheists (ie SKIP THE CHURCH as it is not a LEGAL requirement)

Marry in a Church if you want. Call yourself married (as you would be!) and get on with it.

Try an honest response Ming. I know you can argue better. Seems you can't accept being wrong.

	08-03-2004 00:23									#200
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

But how are you giving power to religions? If the word's all that matters, like I said, get yourself married by a nonreligious organization. They'll crop up quickly enough, just watch.

	08-03-2004 00:27									#201
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Ned - I know what you are saying, and I could agree to such a prctise as well. Unfortunately the gay community (for understandable reasons) will not accept the 'separate but equal' ideas that I think that proposal involves. I may misunderstand the legislation.

As to the power to the Church debate - does anyone seriously think organised religions would like my proposal? Not likely. So I ask, who's zoomin' who here?

	08-03-2004 00:30									#202
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Damn you are being obtuse today Ming. Check the edit to my post where I included the steps for atheists (ie SKIP THE CHURCH as it is not a LEGAL requirement) Marry in a Church if you want. Call yourself married (as you would be!) and get on with it. Try an honest response Ming. I know you can argue better. Seems you can't accept being wrong.

A civil union is NOT considered a "marriage" by many people. You are the one missing the point and are wrong.

Your whole point is that Governments should do ONLY civil unions, and that religions should do "marriages".

So under your way... ONLY religious people could get married, while others would have to SETTLE for a civil union.

Again... The state ALREADY had the power to perform marriages... and you want to TAKE THAT AWAY and hand it ONLY to the religions... So YES, you are GIVING POWER TO THE RELIGIONS... what don't you understand about this. Seems you are the one that can't admit they are wrong

	08-03-2004 00:31									#203
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Elok Who says you have to be married by a religion? If you really want to be married, I don't suggest making that exclusive to a religious group, only exclusive of the government. I have nothing against a "secular union society," or some such, marrying atheists off. I do have a problem with religious veneration being given to the government equivalent. Which is why I say they should have the power to confer legal rights, and leave the symbolism up to the people receiving those rights. It's not like we're setting up a dichotomy of "worships a god" vs. "respects the government."

This argument is virtually the same as mine concerning our situation in Kalifornia. We have two systems now that yield identical rights but with two different names.

This is a joke, IMHO. An obscene joke.

But, it is caused by the DoMA which denies legal benefits to gay marriages.

So long as that Act continues in its present form, we could finesse the situation by eliminating marriage licenses and civil marriages altogether and having all couples exclusively use the domestic partnership registration procedure to record their "marriages."

	08-03-2004 00:35									#204
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yes, sounds similar.

I am in no way saying gays can't marry (despite Ming's continued protestations otherwise). Go ahead and marry in any Church which can recognise your marriage under the terms of their dogma. There ARE churches that will marry gay couples. If you don't want to marry in a church - DON'T. Your choice and nobody else's.

Still waiting for an explanation on how this is discriminatory.......

	08-03-2004 00:35									#205
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Ned - I know what you are saying, and I could agree to such a prctise as well. Unfortunately the gay community (for understandable reasons) will not accept the 'separate but equal' ideas that I think that proposal involves. I may misunderstand the legislation. As to the power to the Church debate - does anyone seriously think organised religions would like my proposal? Not likely. So I ask, who's zoomin' who here?

The way to go is simply eliminate marriage licenses and civil ceremonies in favor of domestic partner registration. People can call themselves married if they want.

If we could amend the DoMA to permit federal recognition of gay marriages, your solution might be acceptable as well. But so long as that Act exists, they cannot obtain federal rights by virtue of anything which is called "marriage."

	08-03-2004 00:37									#206
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Bogus. We should not, repeat NOT establish separate but equal. All contracts of marriage are marriages regardless of how made or how soleminized. The Mass. Sup. court has already ruled that separate is not equal in this realm. They are right.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying (or I didn't do a good job of saying it.)

Civil unions should be what is recognized by the state, both for straight and gay. Marraiges should be for the people in their religion without forcing the religion to change its methods of operation. There are some churches out there who marry homosexual couples. The only thing marraige should be for is those who want to join their coupling (and the benefits involved) with their religion.

	08-03-2004 00:40									#207
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Yes, sounds similar. I am in no way saying gays can't marry (despite Ming's continued protestations otherwise). Go ahead and marry in any Church which can recognise your marriage under the terms of their dogma. There ARE churches that will marry gay couples. If you don't want to marry in a church - DON'T. Your choice and nobody else's. Still waiting for an explanation on how this is discriminatory.......

Wezil, I urge you to review the Kalifornia law on this. You still are hung up on the notion that someone has to perform a "ceremony" to form a valid marriage.

	08-03-2004 00:41									#208
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Wezil I am in no way saying gays can't marry (despite Ming's continued protestations otherwise). Go ahead and marry in any Church which can recognise your marriage under the terms of their dogma. There ARE churches that will marry gay couples. If you don't want to marry in a church - DON'T. Your choice and nobody else's.

Why should they have to "marry" in a church? Why can't the government MARRY THEM... LIKE THEY DO EVERYBODY ELSE ALL READY! The whole point is that SOME DON'T WANT TO MARRY IN A CHURCH... why should a CHURCH be the only one that can RECOGNISE a marriage...

Let's review your whole idea.

Right now, people can get married by the state, religion, ships captian, whatever...

You want to change it so only religions can officially "MARRY" people... and that everything else is JUST A CIVIL UNION... and that if you want to be "married", you need to go to a church.

How is this NOT handing power to the churchs and taking it away from government.

A "civil union" is not a "marriage". The term marriage means something to people, and not just religious people. Whether the "rights" that come with each are the same isn't the issue... you are saying that only people married in a Church are married, the rest is just a "civil union"... That is discriminating against those that want nothing to do with a church... straight or gay.

	08-03-2004 00:44									#209
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

No, actually I'm not. The 'ceremony' is entirely that. A symbolic process with no legal weight. Have all the ceremonies you want (or none as the case may be for atheists).


I do find it strange however that someone would argue us atheists are being hard done by b/c we can't marry in a church. Strange, but no atheists I know want to be married in a church.

	08-03-2004 00:47									#210
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Wezil No, actually I'm not. The 'ceremony' is entirely that. A symbolic process with no legal weight. Have all the ceremonies you want (or none as the case may be for atheists).

Then why not CONTINUE to let governments do MARRIAGES. That is a "ceremony" as well... WHY DO YOU INSIST on changing it to a "Civil Union".

It doesn't change ANYTHING... except telling people that they have to do ANOTHER ceremony if they wish to be actually married.