Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

well i think the argument was mainly that marriage has always been about man + woman, and that breaking that tradition would somehow cause an upheaval or chaos.

the thing is, (correct me if i got the state wrong) but didn't massachusettes decide to allow gay marriage? they aren't falling apart as a result as far as i know.

people don't like change.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

I agree with this, and I also believe that is the correct state. However, it's spelled "Massachusetts". Sheesh! I can spell better than people who are much, much older than me.

But yeah. I agree.

*slinks off*

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

'cause then it wouldn't be so great anymore?
I dunno, I kinda agree that there aren't really any secular definitions of marriage. I mean, if gay marraige was allowed everywhere, in a few decades, what if some people want three-way marriages (or more)? What if they want a marriage license with a tree? The same thing will go on again. I think you have to draw a line at what marriage is and is not.

_________________

well... marriage is a promise of love between two people. always has been. it is also legally declaring that you are gonna live with someone and gives your partner benefits as a result. considering polygamy is more of a personal choice than homosexuality, i see no problem drawing the line at the number of partners included in a marriage... but number of partners and specifying exactly who the partner has to be are two different things. and the second one seems just wrong, to me.

i also cringe at how you make it sound like homosexuality is bad by grouping it with polygamy. like i said, one of those is a choice. one isn't.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

*coughSLIPPERY-SLOPEFALLACYcough*

Yeah, and just in case you think it's not proven, look once more at Denmark and other countries in northern Europe that have had gay marriage legalized since as early as 1989. No outcries from any of THOSE countries for polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia to be legalized.

Besides, I could do just the opposite and say that if my right to get married is denied in law, what would be next? My right to vote? My right to petition? My right to be seen in public or even be alive in this country? Why, if you're going to start denying me rights just because of my sexual orientation, where will you draw the line, hmm?

See? It's just as easy for me to create a slippery-slope scenario as it is for you.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Yeah, but that was only in 1989, and it was only in a few countries. Traditional marriage (before then) was used for thousands of years, and more importantly it was used worldwide. You'd just have to imagine what it would be like if the whole world legalized gay marraige for a few hundred years.

Anyways, I never said I was totally against having same-sex marriages legalized, I just don't really support it right now.

_________________

i think many people took a similar stance with allowing women to vote.

after all, men had been the leaders of the household for thousands of years as well.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

Slippery Slope is a joke. It is a way to discount founded conjecture. You are not asking for a continuation of a law allowing same-sex marriages, you are asking for a new law allowing this. Previously this has not been allowed. So you are asking for a change in the law. Every other example you used in effort to suppose the "slippery slope" are rights that would be taken away. So they are not comparable.

_________________

But they still usually are, naturally. (Nothing against women, just an observation)

_________________

Here in Soviet Canucistan, Gay Marriage bans YOU!

Just kidding. I'm actualy in Canada, not Soviet Canucistan.
Anyhoo, our local ruling Neocons (they style themselves the Conservitive Party of Canada.. at least there's up front about being Conservitives) want to re-open the Gay Marriage can-o-worms even after our Supreme Court already ruled that not allowing homosexualy people the right to marry was a violation of their constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms. The only way the Supreme Court left open to the government to legistate against gay marriage was to either ammend the Charter (fat chance) or use the "notwithstanding clause". Using the notwithstanding clause would likely be political suicide becasue it would probably preticipate a vote of no confidence, which would bring down the government.
So, why the Cons of Canada want to re-open debate is beyond me, since it's obviously going nowhere. Just pandering to their hard-core right wing base, I guess.

_________________

and most people naturally are not gay. not much would change if you did allow gay marriage. just like allowing us girls to vote didn't really change society for the worse either.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

When they act responsibly enough to do so, that is. Some men are just plain jerks who don't care about anyone but themselves.

_________________

1. The exposition about homophobia has no bearing on the question. I think we can all agree that the violence and hatred espoused by groups like the WBC is just wrong. But that's not the issue.

2. Regardless of how close homosexual relationships may or may not be, it does not make homosexuality right. As someone who does believe the Scriptures to be God's Word, I am convinced that it is not right, and that it goes against God's intended purpose for marriage, as stated in Genesis 2:24ff and Ephesians 5. For this reason, I cannot and will not support homosexual marriage.

_________________

But religious arguments are worthless when determining whether or not to pass a law in a society that practices a seperation between church and state...I think we already established that here. It's fine that you don't believe it for religious reasons, but that's no reason why there should be a law against it.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Last time I checked, the US was a representational government, which means that I have just as much right to comment on and to help determine policy as anyone else. And if I have religious reasons for believing in certain policies, then who's to say I have no right to speak? In other words, I'm not convinced that this discussion MUST be limited to purely secular arguments.

EDIT:

The problem is still the same: if marriage is to be a bond between a man and a woman, then how can an asexual homosexual relationship fall within that category? It's still not the same thing as a marriage, regardless of the abstinence from sexual contact.

_________________

I'm not saying you can't have your religious opinions on why homosexuality is wrong. I'm saying that in regards to writing a law banning same-sex marriages, there MUST be a purely secular reason why the State only allows certain rights to be granted to heterosexual people and not to homosexual people. To date, I have yet to hear any such secular reason that holds water. I still have yet to hear how someone can derive the alleged immorality of homosexuality in any way that does not include religion.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

And my point is that, considering that this is a representational form of government, and since this government represents religious people as well as non-religious, I am still not convinced that purely secular arguments are the only ones that can be applied.

_________________

I think that if we tried to make marriage completely secular, we would end up ditching marriage entirely.

_________________

Well, to apply religious arguments as reason to write the law, one would have to decide which religion and which interpretation of such religion could be applied...and in a country that embodies the rights for all people to choose their own religious beliefs, it would be the government saying, "We as the State will be following this one specific religious belief, whether you like it or not." To me and a lot of others I'm sure, that infringes on our rights to practice our own religious beliefs and to be free from morality and law as dictated by a different religion.



I disagree. Marriage can and does exist completely seperate of religion in our country. You don't have to get married in a church--that's just ceremonial. The real legally-binding stuff is processed and managed through the courts, even if you DO get married in a church. So marriage isn't solely religious. In fact, if I recall correctly, the Christian Church didn't take a strong hold of marriages until sometime after the year 1000 AD.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Nevertheless, the government has a responsibility to represent me and my concerns, just as much as others, and to base laws on those concerns, just as much as others. To exclude me on the basis that my philosophy is religious in nature would be infringing upon my rights as a citizen.


Um...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

_________________

A little off topic:

Thomas, didn't Martin Luther consider marriage not to be a sacrament, becuase anyone could do it?

Or am I incorrect on that information?

You are correct, Alec. My point in posting that link was to show that, at least historically speaking, the Church has always had a hand in marriage.

But the reason Luther didn't consider it a sacrament was because it did not offer the promise of grace, as did Baptism and Holy Communion.

_________________

The way I see it is that Christianity does not have an exclusive right over marriage - it exists in every religion and culture, and it exists as a secular right too. Imposing laws that only serve the Christian agenda on marriage is an immediate disservice to both non-Christians and secular people alike.

Writing laws on marriage should be about weighing up both sides, and deciding which path will do most to uphold human rights. And really, I don't really see how the Christian Right's need to have traditional marriage upheld outweighs the right of gay people who want to marry.

But whether or not the law favours religious values, I believe that the process by which they do that needs to be secular. Because frankly I can't see how writing laws by a religious process can truly be democratic and respresentitive.

I agree--this IS a representative democracy, as Didy said, but it's representative by area, not by theology. We have representatives that are assigned by state and district, not by different religious groups, so to be properly representative, one must keep in mind ALL the varying religious beliefs in a district or state. (Of course, this is something that the Christian Exodus is trying to sway in their favor, trying to get as many Fundamentalists in South Carolina as possible so that their representatives serve their personal religious beliefs instead of the beliefs of a people that are diverse.)

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Okay, I will grant you this: that the Christian faith has not had a monopoly on the concept of marriage. However, consider this: I know of no religion or culture that has historically upheld marriage to be anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Christianity may not have a monopoly on the concept, the the concept itself does seem universally present, and it seems vastly predominantly, if not exclusively, a man-woman union.


At least in my own thinking, it would be a lie, and the legislation itself would be calling upon the majority of people to acknowledge it as fact. Marriage is, and always will be, a union between a man and a woman, and no amount of legislation can change that. Nations might very well inact laws that permit homosexual unions, but to call them marriage is no different than enacting a law requiring people to call cheese a vegetable.


I agree to an extent, but not to the extent that this means that religious ideals (like my own) must by necesssity be excluded from the decision making process. You cannot ask one to simply ignore their religious beliefs and convictions in their involvement in politics. It would be absurd to do so.

_________________

the same feelings i have with calling people gay just to insult them: what has everyone got against gay people?!!?? let them get married! they love each other as much as a 'normal' couple, so why continue to tease them?!?!?

Paganism has no rules against gay marriage. The only secular law that Paganism has is "An harm no one, do as ye will." Also, in the case of Baehr vs. Miike in the state of Hawaii, when the Mormon church vehemently opposed gay marriage for religious reasons and tried to claim that it represented all religions in doing so, the principal Buddhist sect in Hawaii--a religion that has many more members in the state than Mormonism--stepped forward to claim that they do NOT oppose gay marriage, and that the Mormon church did not represent them.



Likewise, no amount of legislation will ever dictate to me who I can and cannot love. It will never stop me from referring to my mate as my husband. It can only stop me from having the same equal legal rights that heterosexual couples have in marriage.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I'll add to that the point that there are indeed many cultures and religions that have upheld marriage to be some other than a man and a woman. Namely, the cultures and religions where polygamy and bigamy are practiced.



Yeah, maybe as far as Christianity is concerned. If a law was passed tomorrow that would force Christian churches to perform gay marriage, that would clearly be in violation of those churches' rights. But as far as civil marriages performed in civil settings are concerned, legislation is key, and legislation would be enough to validate those marriages.



Well, that's not really my point. Here, I'll put it like this.......

Say if I were given the power to decide whether or not to legalise gay marriage, the first thing I'd be asking you is how legalising gay marriage will affect YOUR civil rights, as dictated by all the civil rights legislation.

While I will accept your right to refuse to perform Christian marriages for gay people in your church, I wouldn't take an ideological or religious argument with regard to making laws about civil marriages. I'd only want to know how it violates your rights as a citizen, not how it violates your worldview.

The problem I have with this argument is that it isn't your place, or even God's place, to determine what "marriage" is from a legal standpoint. The only way you can really argue that "Marriage is X and nothing else" is if you take either your standpoint, or your god's standpoint, as fact, when the law is bound by neither requirement. Different people have different ideas about what marriage is; why should they pick a definition that only fits one points of view?

- Kef

Actually, legally or otherwise, it IS God's place to determine what marriage is. His authority supercedes any earthly authority. My point is, legislation cannot change what marriage actually is.

_________________