10-10-2003 07:44									#61
	Inflate your Upload Space

It is wrong to use government power to persecute immoral (Or perfectly moral, depending on your outlook ) practices.

	10-10-2003 08:01									#62
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Why is it, that at times like this, it seems I'm the only non-heterosexual Apolytoner who cares about issues concerning non-heterosexuals?

Because I prefer NOT spinning my wheels.

I think you're doing a fine job here, MrFun.

	10-10-2003 08:04									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Is that sarcasm, DRose, or do you sincerely agree with my arguments?

	10-10-2003 08:06									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nope, I agree.

	10-10-2003 10:49									#65
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Tuberski Here you go MrFun: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0031003-12.html ACK!

The damned Yankee carpetbagger. Marriage and family law are not proper subjects for Federal infringement. Hoist on high the Bonny Blue Flag, boys!

Feel all better now, Funsies?

	10-10-2003 11:17									#66
	Support Apolyton

quote: Everyone ought to be allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender, or someone of the same gender. If the Catholic Church cannot adapt to contemporary society, then the government should enact legal recognition of a more secular, civil union between people of the same gender.

That's fine. You now need to say why someone ought to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

You might make more headway with this approach rather than slagging a church to which neither myself nor Mr. Bush belong.

	10-10-2003 11:24									#67
	Suffering from ads?

Good grief. Who the hell needs an Anti-Christ to bring ruination to humanity when we're doing a fine enough job ourselves bickering over crap like this. If two adults love each other, then so be it. Who gives a rat's butt about their sex?

Frickin' A. My nation is better than yours. My race is better than yours. My religion is better than yours. Oh yeah? Yeah! My culture is better than yours. My family has purer blood than yours. You rich bastards are leeches. No! You poor bastards are leeches! You unhealthy people are the problem! ... and the infighting goes on and on.

Ha. If humanity is destroyed, it will be by our own hand, not some supernatural force. If anything, God is bawling and the Devil is laughing while it sits back in the recliner, channel-surfing through humanity's self-inflicted tortures.

Gatekeeper

	10-10-2003 11:39									#68
	Put an end to popups!

quote: If two adults love each other, then so be it. Who gives a rat's butt about their sex?

Does not being able to marry prevent people from loving one another?

	10-10-2003 12:00									#69
	Tired of ads?

Are you implying that if gays and/or lesbians were, say, "eternally bonded" instead of "married," you would change your tune and come out in favor of it? That all this is just semantics?

	10-10-2003 15:41									#70
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi That's fine. You now need to say why someone ought to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. You might make more headway with this approach rather than slagging a church to which neither myself nor Mr. Bush belong.

You have yet to produce a cogent argument not based on sectarian prejudice, as to why two people of the same gender should not be allowed to form a union which would be the equivalent of a heterosexual marriage. I doubt that it would have any harmful effect upon society, and indeed might actually strengthen it.
I have yet to see any deleterious effects from my long term partnership (a marriage in all but name)- Australia still appears stable, Great Britain has not sunk into the sea, Melbourne is not wallowing in a mass of depravity and social disorder (any more than usual, that is). So please tell us, what (outside of what your biblical texts tell you) is so dangerous about two lesbians being married? Or two gay men?

I prefer to think of all humans as being potentially equal-don't you? In a secular state I see no reason (other than 'custom' 'tradition' or 'superstition') for disbarring gay men and lesbians from marriage. Alternative forms of marriage (to the Western Christian one) are common throughout the world- many cultures have men having more than one wife, for instance, or a wife having more than one husband.

	10-10-2003 15:57									#71
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Are you implying that if gays and/or lesbians were, say, "eternally bonded" instead of "married," you would change your tune and come out in favor of it? That all this is just semantics?

Probably not. Only God can give people an eternal bond, and we all know that "God hates fags".

	10-10-2003 16:20									#72
	Got spare money?

quote: Yeah, we should make women stay in unhappy marriages with abusives spouses!

obviously a man who hasn't taken the entire quote into context.
i place equal blame on those idiots who marry willy-nilly, have a kid, divorce, and leave the emotional fallout to the poor child. especially since, you *******, i'm one of those unlucky children. i'm--so far as i know--the only asian kid other than my brother who's had to deal with a divorce.

pre-cana works. if only everyone else could go through it, not just catholics.

	10-10-2003 16:27									#73
	Support Apolyton

as for gays getting married... let them. it can't hurt the institution any. marriage as an institution is all but crapped out now, because of the frequent divorces over things silly like, "i don't like you any more" or "you're just not making enough money" or "you're sterile". if it's the first one, you're a dumbass for marrying 'em, because you shouldn't have in the first place. if it's the second, get over it, you swore that you'd stay together through thick and thin. if it's the last, that's wtf adoption is for.

now, if your mate is beating the **** out of you, or if you're being abused, insulted, denigrated, sure, get the hell out of dodge. but when you see ****ing divorces being advertised on the ****ing el trains for less than us$500, don't you think something the **** is wrong?

if straight people can't keep the sanctity of marriage, then for ****'s sake, there's no reason to not let someone else have a shot at it.

	10-10-2003 16:52									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Let the baby have its bottle. What little he says will change nothing in the long term.

We all knew that a Republican President would do squat for homosexual rights. Hopefully, at least attitutes are stable enough that Bush won't be able to promote further, new discriminatory laws.

i.e Hold on!


Can you still get married in Vermont?

	10-10-2003 18:03									#75
	Support Apolyton

BTW . . .


this stupid, ignorant proclamation is an insult to all straight, single parents out there as well as a vicious attack against non-heterosexuals.

	10-10-2003 18:08									#76
	Got spare money?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's fine. You now need to say why someone ought to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
QUOTE]



There needs to be legal recognition for secular, civil unions administered by justices of the peace between people of the same gender for important reasons:

1) to allow for the same tax benefits and privileges

2) to allow for the spouse to visit his/her spouse who is hospitalized

3) to allow for the same adoption process of a gay couple as that of the straight couple applying to adopt a child

4) to give gay couples the same social legitimacy as that of heterosexual couples

5) to allow for the same insurance coverage benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy

6) this is more plausible, BUT such legal recognition will give an increasing number of non-heterosexuals inroads into mainstream society, and thus, PERHAPS increasing the possibility that they will renounce the more extremely unconventional values such as bath houses, and other unconventional values

	10-10-2003 18:09									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Wow, Bush says something I don't like hearing it must be a day of the week ending in y.

	10-10-2003 18:12									#78
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The damned Yankee carpetbagger. Marriage and family law are not proper subjects for Federal infringement. Hoist on high the Bonny Blue Flag, boys!

Long live the Republic of Texas!



And Mike, you don't count anyway, so poof off.

	10-10-2003 18:17									#79
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Lick my ring.

	10-10-2003 18:19									#80
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You two can work out your domestic disputes over PM rather than doing this on public display through spam in my thread.

	10-10-2003 18:21									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It's not spam it's wit. Call yourself Mr Fun.

	10-10-2003 18:39									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Geez . . .


what a cry-baby.

	10-10-2003 21:37									#83
	Put an end to popups!

quote: That all this is just semantics?

Gatekeeper:

I'm pointing out an assumption of your argument. Just because I love my grandmother does not mean that I ought to marry her.

The issue here is not love, but what is the purpose of marriage?

	10-10-2003 21:39									#84
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Everyone ought to be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

That is the foundation of the sacrament of marriage, yes.

The sacrament of marriage itself conveys no property, inheritance, survivorship, or similar rights - as those generally are civil, not ecclesiastical matters.

So then, why should secular government give a damn about a civil legal union between two adults of the same sex? It cannot "corrode" the sacrament, because it is not part of the sacrament.

quote: Sure there is. Look at what's happening here in Canada. If you believe in preserving marriage, you ought to take concrete steps like this.

What's happening there in Canada? Are there hordes of heteros flying into the divorce courts demanding divorces because "my marriage is meaningless because you let a couple of... of.... of.... THEM get hitched

If you (the general you, not you personally) believe in preserving marriage, use some intelligence in the selection of who you marry, make sure you each clearly understand the other's expectations, communicate, and work on being a good partner.

But leave the damned government out of it.

quote: What I like is that Bush recognises the corrosiveness of divorce and seeks to strengthen those marriages already in existence.

Which can not be done by government, and which is none of government's business in the first place.

	10-10-2003 21:41									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: it can't hurt the institution any. marriage as an institution is all but crapped out now,

Qcubed:

Does the fault lie in the institution, or in the people? The difference between the two cases is that when married people fall short, the institution still remains. But what happens when the institution disappears entirely?

You cannot change the meaning of marriage, and expect everything else to remain the same.

	10-10-2003 21:41									#86
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

In the eyes of the government marriage is set up as an institution of co-dependency. For this reason same sex unions should be allowed. As should any two people who cohabitate and rely on the other for a source of income or personal care, such as a widowed mother living with her widowed son or daughter, or a single person living with their mentally disabled sibling.

Yet, if that person wishes to break that union it would be like a divorce...

My two-cents

	10-10-2003 21:51									#87
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

molly:

quote: You have yet to produce a cogent argument not based on sectarian prejudice, as to why two people of the same gender should not be allowed to form a union which would be the equivalent of a heterosexual marriage.

Well, 'sectarian prejudice' must = christianity, eh?

quote: I have yet to see any deleterious effects from my long term partnership (a marriage in all but name)

And I have yet to see any beneficial effects of such a union. One case is insufficient evidence.

quote: - Australia still appears stable, Great Britain has not sunk into the sea, Melbourne is not wallowing in a mass of depravity and social disorder (any more than usual, that is).

So you admit that Melbourne wallows in depravity and social disorder?

I say that's a pretty sufficient admission. You need considerably more evidence to show that this has always been the case in Melbourne.

quote: So please tell us, what (outside of what your biblical texts tell you) is so dangerous about two lesbians being married? Or two gay men?

Why outside of the bible? What scares you about those arguments?

Secondly, according to the principles of Kantianism, a moral action is one that can be universalisiable. A faithful union of two gay people cannot produce children, hence the institution destroys itself over time. Eventually there would be no people to get married.

quote: I prefer to think of all humans as being potentially equal-don't you?

So people who are not married are somehow less equal than those who are? You realise that your assumptions cause you to contradict the principle of equality?

quote: Alternative forms of marriage (to the Western Christian one) are common throughout the world- many cultures have men having more than one wife, for instance, or a wife having more than one husband.

But we are not talking about polygamy. We are talking about homosexuality. Do these societies sanction homosexual unions?

	10-10-2003 22:00									#88
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: And I have yet to see any beneficial effects of such a union. One case is insufficient evidence.

Good point. Yet many legal actions come out of marriage that protect the union. Spouses cannot testify against each other, automatic dependent claim, insurance coverage (though at most of the companies I have worked for they cover SOs, yet private insurace companies don't always), and I am sure there are many others.

quote: A faithful union of two gay people cannot produce children, hence the institution destroys itself over time. Eventually there would be no people to get married.

So? What's the problem? Let them do it and drive themselves to extinction, where's the harm?

quote: But we are not talking about polygamy. We are talking about homosexuality. Do these societies sanction homosexual unions?

I don't think the conversation should be about "do" about "should"... Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to marry? The only I reason I see the government being against it is monetary... Yet, then again I don't think the government has any buisness imposing personal ethics on individuals. That takes brainwashing to a whole new level. Separate church and state or don't, and be done with it... no more of this hypocracy please.

	10-10-2003 22:02									#89
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Gatekeeper: I'm pointing out an assumption of your argument. Just because I love my grandmother does not mean that I ought to marry her. The issue here is not love, but what is the purpose of marriage?

what a joke


First off, there is a distinct difference between platonic love between biological family members, and that of intimate/romantic love between spouses.

Two gays or lesbians want to marry one another because they are intimately in love with one another -- that is definitely different from the platnoic love between you and your granny.

What other kind of illogical fallicies can you come up with?

	10-10-2003 22:02									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Mr. Fun:

Each point in turn:

quote: 1) to allow for the same tax benefits and privileges

Why? What benefits do these partnerships provide that aid society so that they should give the benefits and privileges?

quote: 2) to allow for the spouse to visit his/her spouse who is hospitalized

Why wouldn't they allow that in the US? Could not a friend visit a sick friend? You should not need to marry to visit someone who is sick.

quote: 3) to allow for the same adoption process of a gay couple as that of the straight couple applying to adopt a child

Are the benefits the same? Different cases ought to be treated differently.

quote: 4) to give gay couples the same social legitimacy as that of heterosexual couples

Aaah. So we see the REAL reason for this. Law cannot confer social legitimacy. You are going the wrong way if you expect people to treat the two exactly the same.

quote: 5) to allow for the same insurance coverage benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy

Are the risks the same? Last I checked insurance companies are businesses like any other.

quote: 6) this is more plausible, BUT such legal recognition will give an increasing number of non-heterosexuals inroads into mainstream society, and thus, PERHAPS increasing the possibility that they will renounce the more extremely unconventional values such as bath houses, and other unconventional values

So why don't they denounce these unconventional values today if they are so evil and horrible?