12-08-2004 04:34									#181
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Awfully tough now with PA gone, eh?

	12-08-2004 04:35									#182
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Care to back that up with anything remotely resembling logic?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Yes. If either spouse changes their mind, the marriage will likely be dissolved. Hence my comment on my aunt and uncle above.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

	12-08-2004 04:41									#183
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Awfully tough now with PA gone, eh?

Owshucks. He got himself banned again.

I'll see if I can get an answer juiced out from him when he comes back.

	12-08-2004 04:49									#184
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Yeah, I didn't think so.

It goes like this.

Marriage is supposed to be a union for life. People who are not ready and opposed to children when they are in their twenties may feel their biological clock ticking by the time they are in their late thirties, particularly for the woman. Then she will want to change her earlier mind about children. Now, if her husband is adamant about not having children, what are her options? She's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Best to avoid this conflict if you can.

Another way one could argue this, is that if you are so determined to not have children, it would be best not to marry out of respect for your partner, so that she would not feel deprived. I don't know if this makes sense to you, but a married woman without children often feels deprived, even if that's what she wanted in the first place.

Let her find someone willing to have children with her, so that she can find this satisfaction.

	12-08-2004 05:25									#185
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Suppose a gay couple wants to adopt children in order to provide a stable household for them? Surely that should be encouraged, right?

And don't give me any crap about how having homosexual parents will screw up children, since the American Medical Association has stated that "all the scientific evidence points to no differences among children raised in heterosexual or homosexual families."

	12-08-2004 05:35									#186
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Suppose a gay couple wants to adopt children in order to provide a stable household for them? Surely that should be encouraged, right?

There are plenty of families out there who want to adopt. Why should they get preferential treatment?

quote: And don't give me any crap about how having homosexual parents will screw up children, since the American Medical Association has stated that "all the scientific evidence points to no differences among children raised in heterosexual or homosexual families."

"has endorsed policy that supports adoption of children by a same-sex partner or an opposite-sex partner who functions as a second parent in a non-married family structure."

Funny how you left this out. Do you believe that a child in a home with a single parent, and a 'non-married' parent will do just as well as a family with two parents who are married?

As for homosexual adoption, where is the evidence for this? Just because they say so doesn't mean they cite studies. This is just as much as a BAM as anything else.

	12-08-2004 06:11									#187
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi It goes like this. Marriage is supposed to be a union for life. People who are not ready and opposed to children when they are in their twenties may feel their biological clock ticking by the time they are in their late thirties, particularly for the woman. Then she will want to change her earlier mind about children. Now, if her husband is adamant about not having children, what are her options? She's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Best to avoid this conflict if you can. Another way one could argue this, is that if you are so determined to not have children, it would be best not to marry out of respect for your partner, so that she would not feel deprived. I don't know if this makes sense to you, but a married woman without children often feels deprived, even if that's what she wanted in the first place. Let her find someone willing to have children with her, so that she can find this satisfaction.

Still waiting.

Here's a hint, Ben. It's not logical to discourage marriage because only one spouse might, at some point in the indefinite future, change their mind about wanting children and if this happens, it might lead to marital problems.

	12-08-2004 06:21									#188
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Marital baby farms? Wow, you sure have respect for women who are pregnant. Not at all. One of the questions would be, have you spoken with your fiancee about children? That seems reasonable to me.

It's not me reducing marriage to the state of salmon spawning grounds- it's you!

Hello Pot, it's me, Kettle, still not noticed your dark colouration?

I'm just taking your line of thought to its logical extreme-

whether people choose to have children or not, is no one else's business- unless they mistreat the children, in which case there are already mechanisms in place for dealing with that.


Good grief, why not ask them which position they like, how many times they plan to copulate a week- you're really tripping out on this totalitarian faith initiative ain't ya?



'The Handmaid's Tale' is only a novel and a film, you know, it's not a template for future living.

Couples' reasons for getting married are private and personal- and none of your damned business either.

As for this 'marriage being for life' nonsense- no one can predict the future, and only the Catholic Church expects abused men and women to stay in relationships no matter what. I fail to see why ordinary men and women should be held to your impossible idealistic notions of behaviour. Now let me see- Islam and Judaism have divorce provisions, as does Protestantism. Do you reckon those brands of faith know something about human nature you don't?

Clearly when it comes to personal privacy and outside influence we have different definitions of the word 'reasonable'.

'There are plenty of 'families' out there who want to adopt. Why should they get preferential treatment? '

Obi Gyn


Why is it preferential? Funny how your types always produce that- 'ner, you want preferential treatment' schtick- err, no 'we' don't.

'We' would like the same treatment. 'We're' only human after all.


'Funny how you left this out. Do you believe that a child in a home with a single parent, and a 'non-married' parent will do just as well as a family with two parents who are married?'

Obi Gyn

This is just an opinion or an assertion. Again based on antiquated notions of what constitutes a nuclear family, and which in many societies has never existed other than in the realms of fantasy.

Are you stuck in some 1950s' time warp?

What's next- separate single beds for married couples, one foot each kept on the floor at all times?

	12-08-2004 06:24									#189
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ben, are you sure that you don't still live in a religious commune? Because your views of reality are so distorted it's amazing.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi There are plenty of families out there who want to adopt. Why should they get preferential treatment?

There are far, far more children waiting to be adopted than there are couples wanting to adopt in North America alone. Once you expand that worldwide, the difference is even greater.

And where the hell do you get preferential treatment from?

quote: "has endorsed policy that supports adoption of children by a same-sex partner or an opposite-sex partner who functions as a second parent in a non-married family structure." Funny how you left this out. Do you believe that a child in a home with a single parent, and a 'non-married' parent will do just as well as a family with two parents who are married?

What? This doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that a child with no parents at all is better off than in a home with a single parent and a 'non-married' parent?

quote: As for homosexual adoption, where is the evidence for this? Just because they say so doesn't mean they cite studies. This is just as much as a BAM as anything else.

Yes, the AMA is known for making completely baseless statements in regards to health issues.

	12-08-2004 06:47									#190
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi No. Their decline in fertility is through no fault of their own. That's why I make the distinction between couples that cannot conceive, and those who can, but chose not to.

So what exactly is the difference of old people with a decline in fertility through no fault of the their own, and two gay guys who can't have children through no fault of their own.... Is it only because one couple is a male and female and the other is two guys? You're not making much sense. Again... it's not about the children for you, it's about the couple.

quote: Can't make a square a circle Ming, no matter how hard you try. I explained why one could be enforced while the other could not.

And again... all you talk about is enforcement... and that's not the issue. You are the one trying to change the subject. Your whole point is the kids... not the enforcement. It could be enforced by signing a legal contract, that if they don't have kids, the marriage will be annuled or auto divorce... and that's just silly... so enough with the enforcement crap and just state your view honestly instead of the smoke and mirrors.

quote: Sure I can. One of the biggest benefits society derives from marriage are children. Lacking any such argument from the side supporting gay marriage, I am forced to conclude that they have no case.

Again... it's only one benefit, and you aren't limiting straight couples who don't plan on having kids or can't. You are the one with no case.

quote: I have never heard a positive challenge to my argument, and I'm not surprised, since there is none. All I hear are attacks on my arguments, but none in favour as to why gay marriage will benefit society in the same way as society has come to expect from traditional marriage.

How can your "challenge" be addressed with the all the holes in it. Again... a couple not planning on having children will give society the same benifits as a gay couple will... You want to allow one, but not the other.
Both older couples and gays "THROUGH NO CHOICE OF THEIR OWN" can't have children... so again, what's the difference?

quote: One can argue that it is discriminatory, but that does not provide a positive benefit to the state, as I have argued that marriage provides.

A childless marriage also provides benefits to the state... stability, and happier people... a good thing.
A gay marriage provides THE SAME BENEFITS as when older people get married... So yes, you are discriminating.

quote: Now, note that I have other arguments as well, that also relate to children, but not to their conception. So even if you tackle this one, you are left to deal with raising children, and the need for the involvement of both genders in child rearing.

However... if a gay couple doesn't adopt or have children in some other fashion, that is NOT AN ISSUE.
So are you saying you will allow gay marriages only if they don't raise children? Oh, that's right, you don't want to allow it under any circumstances, and straight couples don't have to follow the same restrictions...

Every one of your arguments and challenges have been addressed. You hide behind a smoke screen of "enforcement"... which would be harder, but could still be done... you claim exceptions should be made for straight couples because it's not their fault, but no exceptions can be made for gay people... you claim all these wonderful benefits to society for married couples, but the big difference is the children... yet MANY married couples never will have children or plan to, but that's ok for them, but not for gays....

Everybody here can see what you are really saying, so you might as well stop wasting your time spinning your wheels trying to defend your illogical arguments. Just admit you are against it because it's against your moral code, and that all your stated reasons don't stand up to the test of logic. Be honest... that's ok... but stop trying to make it out like it's anything more than just your opinion. You have no facts to back up anything you are saying.

	12-08-2004 06:50									#191
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: There are far, far more children waiting to be adopted than there are couples wanting to adopt in North America alone. Once you expand that worldwide, the difference is even greater.

No, I'm sorry, that's just not true.

quote: Some agencies require individuals to wait for at least a year before they may be studied while others will not accept applications after a certain number of applicants have registered and until they believe they will be able to do a home study and place a child with the applicant within a reasonable length of time. Virtually all agencies maintain waiting lists of people who have been approved to adopt. Most agencies consider a group of approved families for the next child to be adopted. Many of these agencies also offer the birthmother the opportunity to choose the adopting family from a group of nonidentifying resumés of previously approved families. Most prospective adoptive parents do not like the prospect of spending several years' time on a waiting list, even if they understand the main reason for the wait to be an imbalance in numbers. Social workers believe that one good by-product of waiting lists is they may give applicants time that is often needed to seriously reflect on adoption and to work through any final infertility conflicts the family may have.

http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/en...ists/370/1.html

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/how_long

quote: And where the hell do you get preferential treatment from?

"That should be encouraged," implies that preferential treatment will be given in order to encourage such action.

quote: What? This doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that a child with no parents at all is better off than in a home with a single parent and a 'non-married' parent?

No, I'm saying that a child will be best off having two married parents, of which there are many willing to adopt the child. AMA is engaged in social activism here, and not in the best interests of the child.

quote: Yes, the AMA is known for making completely baseless statements in regards to health issues.

It's still a bald faced assertion if they lack studies to confirm their statement that science supports them.

	12-08-2004 06:56									#192
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Here's a hint, Ben. It's not logical to discourage marriage because only one spouse might, at some point in the indefinite future, change their mind about wanting children and if this happens, it might lead to marital problems.

Only one spouse? What happens to one affects the other and vice versa. Just because one changes her mind does not rule her opinion irrelevant.

Many couples have problems with this sort of thing which is why they should go over this in counselling. Many divorces could be prevented.

All of my statement I have given is a plausible reason why the wife might change her mind as her situation changes.

Marriage counselling is not just about preparing for problems that exist, but also about anticipating ones that may arise in the future.

I agree that this is not sufficient justification to prevent two people from marrying, but it is sufficient justification to offer a warning.

Smoking may not lead to lung cancer in all cases, yet the manufacturers are required to label their product. The same logic applies here.

	12-08-2004 07:07									#193
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Many couples have problems with this sort of thing which is why they should go over this in counselling. Many divorces could be prevented.

And that's only A SINGLE PROBLEM... there are many more that come up far more frequently than this one... Money, drug or booze, affairs... all far more frequent than this situation... The simple fact is, there are many dangers for a married couple, and for you to pick on this one point as a reason for not allowing gays to get married is absurd. This has nothing to do with the basic fact that you just don't think it's right... so you hide behind these silly smoke screens. Just be honest to yourself and everybody else, and admit it... you are preaching discrimination... because that's what you are doing when you strip away all the meaningless arguments you are poorly attempting to make. You have not raised a single solid or logical point to support your point of view... or that's right, it's the children... which is an argument that just doesn't hold any water, an you know it.

	12-08-2004 07:08									#194
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

molly:

quote: It's not me reducing marriage to the state of salmon spawning grounds- it's you!

Where have I said that the only purpose of marriage, and the only benefit that society recieves from marriage comes from procreation? Procreation is an important part of how society benefits from marriage, but there are many other benefits that I also mentioned in my opening statement in this thread.

Perhaps if you cared to read this, you would refrain from weaving baseless strawmen.

quote: I'm just taking your line of thought to its logical extreme-

Which is why I temper my statement in the opening post, to prevent such extremes.

quote: whether people choose to have children or not, is no one else's business- unless they mistreat the children, in which case there are already mechanisms in place for dealing with that.

Whether people use contraception or not is no one else's business, yet that comes up in marriage counselling. The business of a marriage counsellor is to deal with these issues before they arise, and so, they do have authority, as the couple themselves have requested such counselling.

quote: Good grief, why not ask them which position they like, how many times they plan to copulate a week- you're really tripping out on this totalitarian faith initiative ain't ya?

A totalitarian faith that encourages marriage counselling. Horrors! Next thing we'll know we'll have nazi jackboots storming the Riechstag.

quote: Couples' reasons for getting married are private and personal- and none of your damned business either.

But they are the business of a marriage counsellor.

quote: As for this 'marriage being for life' nonsense- no one can predict the future, and only the Catholic Church expects abused men and women to stay in relationships no matter what.

I suggest you look at that again. They don't.

quote: I fail to see why ordinary men and women should be held to your impossible idealistic notions of behaviour.

What impossible ideals? That they be asked these questions before getting married? That they get married because they want love and companionship as well as children?

That's not an impossible ideal, and if it is, then I weep for our times.

quote: Now let me see- Islam and Judaism have divorce provisions, as does Protestantism. Do you reckon those brands of faith know something about human nature you don't?

Considering that I'm a protestant, I find this approach laughable. Christians allow divorce, but consider it to be like severing off a limb rather than ending a contract. So they treat the issue of divorce with much greater concern, than the rest of society.

quote: Why is it preferential? Funny how your types always produce that- 'ner, you want preferential treatment' schtick- err, no 'we' don't.

To encourage a behaviour implies preferential treatment.

quote: This is just an opinion or an assertion. Again based on antiquated notions of what constitutes a nuclear family, and which in many societies has never existed other than in the realms of fantasy.

I suggest then you study some sociology. Broken families do not work as well as ones intact. Divorce rips families apart rather than healing wounds.

I have to go now, but I have plenty of studies that back me up on this one.

quote: What's next- separate single beds for married couples, one foot each kept on the floor at all times?

I can't wait to be married, so I can enjoy making love to my wife. Why would I care for separate beds?

	12-08-2004 08:20									#195
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: As for the couple that does not want to have children, they should be discouraged, but not barred from getting married.

I hereby discourage you from getting married!

But why should they be discouraged?

quote: Sure I can. One of the biggest benefits society derives from marriage are children.

Umm...that isn't where babies come from. Furthermore, we don't exist to benefit society, society exists to benefit us. Society is an agreement between multiple parties who see it in their own interest to cooperate. Putting society ahead of the parties that make up society gets the carriage ahead of the horse...

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

quote: Lacking any such argument from the side supporting gay marriage, I am forced to conclude that they have no case.

Many homosexuals do have children, but marriage is not just about children, it's arguably about the most important commitment people can make... And trust me, kids are usually not the first priority when people make that commitment...

	12-08-2004 09:21									#196
	Got spare money?

I guess this all was pretty predictable, but I never expected such a huge landslide in an election where more Democrats voted than Republicans. St. Louis isn't cosmopolitan, but it's a big city nonetheless.

I'm coming around on the question of families. It's true that traditional marriage is in a sorry state when half of all marriages end in divorce. Because of this, it happens that lots of people have more than one mom or dad, counting step parents in the mix (which many do). Then you have adoptees meeting their biological parents after they're 18. Probably, many adoptees accommodate their biological parents in their construction of what it means to be a family.

For me, I guess it comes down to the definition of marriage. There's a mental block there. It's obvious to me that marriage is between one man and one woman in our society. They might do it differently in muslim societies or African societies, but we aren't a muslim or African society. We've already fought this fight with the Mormons. The RCC allowing gay marriage widely during the Medieval period is a real laugh riot that's unworthy of serious discussion (I can make disparaging jokes about it all night though).

Given this definition, the only real grounds for argument to me is why a redefinition would be worthwhile to society. In other words, what's in it for us all?

	12-08-2004 09:28									#197
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Gay people could finally marry the people they love, perhaps, and it doesn't hurt anyone else?

	12-08-2004 09:32									#198
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

That's not answering my question. What's in it for us? How are you going to "buy" my vote against this referendum?

	12-08-2004 09:33									#199
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

By "us" do you mean "straight people" or "everyone"?

	12-08-2004 09:34									#200
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Everyone, the vast majority of whom are straight.

	12-08-2004 09:35									#201
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, it causes no harm to straight people, and it allows gay people to marry the person they love (making them happier)... so, overall, there's a benefit. It makes some people happier at no cost to anyone else.

	12-08-2004 09:38									#202
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You aren't answering my question. How is it benefitting society? If I could see a benefit (ultimately to me through society) then I would have an excuse to dismiss what the Pope says about the subject and could try to modify what I know to be true about marriage in our society.

Here's an example argument. Gay marriage would encourage monogamy among gay people. If this were successful, then STD rates would be reduced substantially.

Last edited by DanS on 12-08-2004 at 09:44

	12-08-2004 09:42									#203
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

freedom for all law-abiding people, and equal citizenship is a benefit for society

	12-08-2004 09:54									#204
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Now that the anti-sodomy laws have been struck down, so you have freedom to do what you like. Your idea about equal citizenship is decidedly different than my idea.

But anyway, perhaps if you were more concrete on the benefits to society...

	12-08-2004 10:02									#205
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi a. Where have I said that the only purpose of marriage, and the only benefit that society recieves from marriage comes from procreation? b. Perhaps if you cared to read this, you would refrain from weaving baseless strawmen. c. The business of a marriage counsellor is to deal with these issues before they arise, and so, they do have authority, as the couple themselves have requested such counselling. d. A totalitarian faith that encourages marriage counselling. Horrors! Next thing we'll know we'll have nazi jackboots storming the Riechstag. e. I suggest you look at that again. They don't. f. That they get married because they want love and companionship ? That's not an impossible ideal. g. Considering that I'm a protestant, I find this approach laughable. Christians allow divorce, but consider it to be like severing off a limb rather than ending a contract. So they treat the issue of divorce with much greater concern, than the rest of society. h. To encourage a behaviour implies preferential treatment.

Well you've excelled yourself, with a Nazi reference, and 'Christians' rather severing limbs than getting divorced. Are you considering a career in stand up comedy? I swear, you may have a future at this rate.


Let's do the checklist:

a. Who harps on about reproduction being tied to sexual intercourse?

You do.

Who emphasises the need for marriage to be for the production of children, to the extent that couples not wanting to spawn in the Kenobic rush upstream will be actively discouraged from getting married?

Oh that's right. You do.

b. Oh, baseless strawmen.

Sorry, I was taking you as my exemplar, you're so proficient at it in these threads. I believe the first part of my reply covers the supposed baselessness of my earlier retort, but we could always quote from that thread where you harped on about having sex when your 'future' wife wasn't ovulating and caught yourself out.

If she's not ovulating you ain't going to be reproducing is ya?

You'd be doing it for fun. Well I suppose even you can contradict yourself.

Bad boy.

c.

Does every couple seek or go through marriage counselling?

Can't recall Britney Spears doing that in the drunken rush to get hitched in Vegas or Reno or wherever it was.

In which case why bring it up? Oh, to make it seem as though your absurd proposal for some
'Pastor Kenobi's Guide for Young Lovers' would be an everyday occurrence.

Hooey and eyewash.

Keep your nose out of other people's business- if they want to get married it's their affair whatever the reason.

d.

I invoke Godwin. Really, what a ludicrous melodramatic carry on. Religionistas are quite totalitarian enough on their own without exhuming the corpse of National Socialism. Not even effective as a troll.

e.

I was brought up a Catholic, was for a time a devout Catholic and still have friends and relatives who are, including a priest or two. I suggest with regard to Catholicism I know what I'm talking about- from personal experience.

f.

Note how I altered your reply? Impossible ideals- well, wanting to get married if you're gay, and have the same aspirations and hopes that heterosexual couples have, who don't wish to spawn progeny either in or out of wedlock is clearly an impossible ideal- and it looks like you'd want to make it one for those heterosexuals too!

Wow- your faith is so sharing, caring and inclusive isn't it?

That finger wagging, don't do this routine, just makes me glow all warm.

g.

Now which 'Christians' are these with the amputee fetish? The Anglicans, whose faith's founder went through a few divorces of his own? The ones who go through no fault divorces perhaps?

The ones who realize that people change, grow apart, through no fault of their own and being stuck in a loveless union is degrading and dehumanizing?

Not your sort of 'Christian' then.

h.

'To encourage a behaviour implies preferential treatment?'

I'm sorry, are you undergoing difficulties with your Kenobic-English translator ?

Dear Obi Gyn, I encourage you to look both ways before crossing the road.

Whoops, forgot to say that to my partner this morning, clearly, I prefer you.



'I suggest then you study some sociology.' Obi Gyn

I suggest you study some social history- study the real past that is, instead of living in a fantasy past.

	12-08-2004 10:04									#206
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Why does the freedom of others require you to benefit as well? Actually, there is a benefit, helping to preserve or restore the freedom of others would hopefully help preserve or restore your freedom. And if that's a bit too ambiguous, consider that a ban such as this violates your freedom already by depriving you of your freedom of association. The fact you would never feel the need to exercise such a freedom doesn't matter, you gave that freedom away.

Now, what gets me riled up are all these people who want help protecting their freedom only to turn around and take my freedom and that is why I object to "gay marriage". Most homosexuals are Democrats and/or liberals and wouldn't think twice about helping others take my freedom and the hidden agenda behind this issue is the "right" to sue people who refuse to recognise marriages between gay people.

But I don't ask "what's in it for me" if someone wants to smoke tobacco or eat ice cream... Your freedom may or may not benefit me but it isn't supposed to, it's supposed to benefit the free... You...

quote: For me, I guess it comes down to the definition of marriage. There's a mental block there. It's obvious to me that marriage is between one man and one woman in our society. They might do it differently in muslim societies or African societies, but we aren't a muslim or African society. We've already fought this fight with the Mormons.

That brings up a problem, we aren't Muslim or African. So where does this "marriage" in our society come from? Christianity? The Bible? And most of those who object to "gay marriage" do so on religious grounds... But allowing them to impose their religion on others violates the 1st Amendment. That means marriage in our society needs to be defined in broader terms to escape the church-state problem.

Btw, the Mormons should have won that battle if morality mattered. But the SCOTUS effectively turned the land of the free into a communist country with it's ruling on polygamy. The court announced that "the free exercise thereof {religion} meant only religious thought or belief, not practices. Hell, even the most strict communist system couldn't outlaw religious thought, it merely drove religious practices underground. Would the court had made the same ruling if Congress banned reading the Bible or going to church? Of course not, so the 1st Amendment became "democratised" with the majority getting to decide who can practice their religion.

	12-08-2004 10:13									#207
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Why does the freedom of others require you to benefit as well? Actually, there is a benefit, helping to preserve or restore the freedom of others would hopefully help preserve or restore your freedom. And if that's a bit too ambiguous, consider that a ban such as this violates your freedom already by depriving you of your freedom of association. The fact you would never feel the need to exercise such a freedom doesn't matter, you gave that freedom away.

Freedom of association? So marriage is like a club or political party now? Wow.

quote: That brings up a problem, we aren't Muslim or African. So where does this "marriage" in our society come from? Christianity? The Bible?

Who knows? It goes back thousands of years for sure. Did my German ancestors have more than one wife? When did my Welsh ancestors start availing themselves of common law marriage? But in any event, this doesn't even matter to me. That's just the way it is. Like the sky is blue.

quote: Btw, the Mormons should have won that battle if morality mattered.

Yeh, but they didn't win.

	12-08-2004 10:37									#208
	Remove this text

[qE] Originally posted by DanS
You aren't answering my question. How is it benefitting society?[/q]

Society is made up of people. I would assume making people happier counts as a benefit to society. Not only does gay marriage do this, but it doesn't hurt anyone else! So society benefits, because more people are happier.

	12-08-2004 13:09									#209
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't think that BK is going to agree with everybody here because we're all operating on differing interpretations of marriage. With our differing premises, the logic we use to reach our differing conclusions is all fine (for the most part, BK I'll spare you examples of a couple of your doosies), so let's talk about definition instead.

I, personally, find my interpretation to be more consistent and ultimately workable of course but BK: You claim marriage is for life, between a man and a woman to the end of producing a child, but is that the only end for the specified means? Are there not other means to reach that end? Are there not other perfectly valid ends for marriage in their own right? Furthermore, why does it need to be for life? Even a traditional marriage that satisfies the aim of children can surely break up without you batting an eyelid?

Kuci: You're learning my child

	12-08-2004 16:28									#210
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think this result just goes to prove what has been mentioned in previous threads on this issue. This isnt the right time to force the question. Religious conservatives will obviously be against it. Constitutional conservatives will be against it simply because of the actions of the Mass supremos. Liberals will be against it because....... hmmm? Why are the liberals against it?