Same-sex Marriage

[REASON]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

You may as well be saying that the walking tree creatures from Lord of the Rings are required for a marriage.

C'mon, INow. They're called "Ents." Get with the program.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I fear that you have painfully misunderstood me, and request that you give another shot at reading my posts. You've come away with a completely skewed and inaccurate view of what I've typed, as evidenced by the strange response you offered.

I disagree. But we will continue.

Read again. My point was that the concept of love is very well explained using science. My point is that belief in god is getting more explained each day using those same sciences. My point was NOT that we spend time with professors lecturing about these explanations during marriage ceremonies.

To restate: The concept of love is well defined in the sciences of psychology, neurobiology, sociology, and evolution. Please... don't put words in my mouth. My point is clear.

As I stated, love as concept and practice is well grounded in traditions of religion and philosophy. It is from this usage that marriage ceremonies elaborate on the concept and from which human unions are defined. On this thread, I believe that matters. It is pertinent to the subject.

I acknowledge that I was mistaken about you specifically being married. I believe I misconstrued this from what I read in post #175, where you said:

I just want to comment briefly that (especially for people like me) god has nothing to do with it. I'm an atheist, through and through... as are many of my closest friends and relatives. However, we still marry, as that's the social convention.

I now stand corrected as you were speaking of general "we" rather than one that includes yourself, at this time. My questions regarding marriages and ceremonies and language used still stand.

My point remains. Your assertion that god equals love is equivalent to saying that leprechauns equal euphoria.

Is there historical, philosophical, religious and spiritual examples to back up your equivalency claim? If yes, please cite these. Are there any current texts published today that are stating what you are saying is equivalent? If yes, please cite.

It doesn't matter how many people in the past (in "history") have held this view, as truth is not determined by popularity.

It matters as far as consensus goes. I was making point that this isn't my unique mental construct, and is something that humanity has thought for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

You have not defined either god or love in a way that is accepted by all readers, so perhaps you should start there.

Perhaps. But I have provided a synonym that has historical and current basis in our world. Whether all readers accept that is not my concern. Have you provided any refutation based on scientific explanations, that will find acceptance by all readers? If yes, please cite.

As it stands right now, you are making up your own meanings to words which we all use, and we don't all agree with the personal meanings you are using.

So, we are back to it being popularity contest. The views I am citing are hardly unique to me. I am claiming they are written in ancient texts, current literature and are addressed often in marriage ceremonies that I've attended. Your attempts to isolate them to my own ideology are so far inaccurate.

For example, with me and others, love has nothing whatsoever to do with human mythology (the aforementioned god concept).

And yet, for many it does. I accept that for you it does not. And for several others that are like you. Could you concede that in reality we share that for several like me, it is equivocal? If not, why not?

It's as if you're talking about a banana, but keep saying that bananas equal unicorns.

It's like that, but I don't believe I can cite either marriage ceremonies nor literature in human history where persons have said "bananas equal unicorns." Personally, as an open minded person, I could see how that equivocation could be made. I can see overlap between the two. But I would acknowledge that based on historical evidence and current literature, I would be one of a very small handful that would hold to this equivocation. So, on that popularity contest, I might be in small company. I'm okay with that.

If you want to use the word unicorn to define a banana, that's fine, but you're doing so does not necessitate that the rest of us accept that a unicorn is the same as a banana.

How about considers it? Where have I said that you must accept that Love equals God, and if you don't you are not accepting universal truth? I am equivocating Love and God. Just as I equivocate Life and God. If you choose not to accept this, I'll be okay. If you desire to discuss this on public forum, I'll be okay.

Do you understand what I'm saying here? You even conceded that love can exist without god, so I consider my point made.

Where did I concede that? Can you please quote this?

To restate, though, two people can love one another, and they can be married, and they can do so all without god ever factoring into the equation, especially since proof of the existence of god is sorely lacking, despite millenia of people like you trying to find it.

Depends on what proof must look like. God is found everyday within Me. I find God everywhere. But if I must have physical proof that something is God and is only God (aka, I must validate dogma), then i may come up empty handed. Okay by me. Just as Love as physical object, and something that can only be called love thus far is without physical proof. If you have such proof that Love exists, and only exists as Love within physical world, I'd be interested in said proof.

Frankly, I don't need your permission to do any damned thing, and, further, I agree that pretending you're all alone in these views would be inaccurate. I never once claimed, nor even insinuated, that you were alone in your views. So, really... please... read my post again.

I have and you have insinuated such. When you said this before:
"and really is nothing more than a bald assertion with no basis."

That insinuates that my equivocation is isolated to me. The basis I have cited is philosophical and religious literature. There are plenty examples in modern culture where the equivocation is made, thus there is a basis and not a bald assertion.

You have also said:
"As it stands right now, you are making up your own meanings to words which we all use, and we don't all agree with the personal meanings you are using."

Which implies that my meanings are my own and not part of a collective. If your point is they are not accepted by all, I will agree. I don't believe you could provide explanation of love within science that is accepted by all. I believe you would be utilizing meanings that are available to all, but not accepted by all. I believe you would be part of a collective, but not necessarily addressing Love that is used by all. So far, you have not offered up those explanations, so I'll stand here and continue to claim that (Agape) Love equals God.

Yes, it's very easily explained in context of psychology, belief, and the fallacies and tendencies of the human mind.

I disagree. Feel free to cite sources of what you speak. Where (Agape) Love is explained as such.

You should review my thread about how religion hijacks neocortical mechanisms, and why so many believe in a deity (although, it hasn't gained much traction here at Hypo, I've contributed somewhat extensively on the topic at another site and would be glad to elaborate).

Please do. And please link me to thread of which you speak. Personally, "neocortical mechanisms" being hijacked sounds like balooey. I understand the terms being used, but you are seemingly putting this forth as intention by religion. To do just what you feel is taking place in the hijacking process. As if religion would be unique to this as well. Wouldn't this be true of any dogma? Someone who is convinced in scientific dogma, wouldn't they be up to same thing?

Sure. Simple, really. Humans are a social species. We've evolved as pack/troop animals. Love has different forms. We love family, friends, kin, and reproductive partners. That love gets reinforced with oxytocin, dopamine, and other chemicals such as vasopressin. Those who in our evolutionary past formed strong bonds with others tended to be more reproductively successful than those who did not, so the ability to love and care for non-self pack members was heavily selected for.

This explains why reproduction is successful, it fails to explain why love exists. Love is not necessary in what you are speaking of. Forming strong bonds isn't all that explained, and to the degree explanation is lacking, I believe it lacks in why ability to love matters. Theoretically, you could form strong bond with another and not have love for them.

While you acknowledge that love has different forms, I believe you are speaking of Eros Love from that point forward. Perhaps not, and perhaps we discuss this further. I have stated Agape Love = God.

We love because we are social animals, but the things we love exist on a long spectrum. We love our parents. We love our children. We love our brothers and sisters. We love our friends, and we love our pets. I struggle to understand why you cannot understand why somebody would love someone of the same sex.

I have not said this. Where are you getting this from?

You also aren't explaining, but are describing. I agree with what you are saying when you say "we love x." I'd add in there, that WE love ourselves. And WE love God. Doesn't mean everyone does, but some of "we" does and thus if "we love pets" is allowed, I would say "we love God" is to be allowed. Though I'm pretty sure you won't allow for that. Perhaps you will. Maybe you'll surprise me / us.

Put rather simply: We love the person, not the gender.

But why? You are yet to explain homosexual love.

Your feelings and desires for a person are not somehow dormant until you've looked down their pants (checked under the hood). They are there from the start, and you don't generally "choose" who you love. You just "find" them... that is, if you're lucky.

With Agape Love, you cannot not find them. No luck involved. It happens always and in all ways. With Eros Love, the act is a choice. The feeling and allowing for attachment of that feeling to another does appear to be luck. Though that, IMO, is a lazy excuse for what is likely at work (i.e. chain of events that may be beyond immediate, low level, awareness).

The point being, we are discussing marriage itself, and if god is completely irrelevant in some cases, then you cannot in the next breath claim that the concept of marriage is in any way dependent upon he/she/it.

Correct, I wouldn't claim that God is completely irrelevant in some cases. I would concede that the concept and connotations of God is for some, in the proverbial room, irrelevant to how they feel in relation to others.

Like, I might claim that gravity is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing here. While you (and really I) would claim that the concept may be, but as experience and existence goes, no gravity is not completely irrelevant in cases where the concept is denied and deemed invalid.

Either marriage can happen without god, or it cannot. It's an either/or state, and you've already conceded that it CAN happen without god. Ergo, my point is confirmed.

Without the concept of God. I've already said I equivocate God with Life. For me this is not either / or. I can relate to that dualistic set up, but is not how I choose to understand reality anymore. God can be both Life and both Love and more concepts, all at same time. So, what I did say, but apparently you didn't quite get is, "In my view, atheist could take "God" out and say something along lines of, "what Life has joined together in this union we have come today to celebrate, let no human put this asunder," and it would mean essentially same thing to me."

Human constructed marriage ceremonies can occur without conceptual acknowledgment of God or Divine. Even in those cases, God is still relevant.

What evidence can you offer... evidence which is replicable and falsifiable... of this "source?"

Will you allow for inner observation and non physical evidence?

What consistent definition of this concept can you share, and is that definition universal and accepted by everyone? If not, then you've got nothing.

Literally, I got no-thing? I'm okay with that. By the way you are using the term, inaccurate. I may have something or be onto something, even while I may not have universal acceptance. You're saying all current scientific theories that don't have universal acceptance, have nothing? I don't think you believe this, but it is what you are insinuating.

I am saying Agape Love equals God. I can / will elaborate on this as if concepts can help in understanding and if you will allow for inner observation, I believe it plausible to provide direct experience.

You may as well be saying that the walking tree creatures from Lord of the Rings are required for a marriage.

This again, would be area where I feel you are insinuating that what I am saying is isolated to my own personal beliefs, and nothing more. I realize you are not saying this, but it comes off that way.

IMO, what I am saying is like saying gravity must be present if a marriage is occurring on earth. Can't see gravity and some people in room may say it is a myth and choose not to accept any theories which provide evidence of it at work. Shall we then conclude that for these people, not only is the concept of gravity irrelevant, but it is not present at their ceremonies, because of their convictions?

Either way, your continued request for me to give examples of weddings which discussed evolution of love or the psychology of god suggests to me that you've completely missed my point, and I ask you again to please re-read what I've previously posted.

Nope dude. I'm pretty sure I'm spot on with your point. And I stand by the questions I've asked which thus far are being evaded. I'm guessing questions you've asked of me in this post will, for you, have to come first before you dare respond to my thought provoking questions. Surprise me and perhaps again, I will stand corrected.

[InfiniteNow]

Jway - There are too many flaws in your logic, and too many misperceptions of my points. I am not inclined to make YET ANOTHER attempt to clarify my position, nor to squander energy attempting to dislodge your mind from that heavily indoctrinated web of mumbo jumbo which you appear to sincerely hold so dear. We are merely venturing farther and farther off-topic, and doing nothing to further the thread topic. All I can say is that, despite your disagreement, your responses truly don't show an understanding of my points, and I'll leave it at that, trying to wrestle this thread back to it's previous topic of discussion.

To summarize my position, in the hopes that we can get back on track:

1) Marriage requires neither god nor religion to still be a marriage
2) Love requires neither god nor religion to still be love
3) Calling two things by the same name does not make them equal, nor does it prove the existence of either.
4) Marriage defines the relationship, not the genitals the participants in that relationship are required to have.
5) I have yet to hear a single relevant secular reason why two same sex partners should not be allowed to wed, nor why their relationship should be called by a name other than "marriage."

[Jway]

Mod team. Thanks for the split! Much appreciated.

IN - Funny you choose not to cite the flaws you allude to nor discuss what I have said in relation to quotes you made. I find this evasive. I stand by that I have squarely addressed the points you have raised, and that it is you who fail to speak to what is truly being said and the logic used.

In post 17 on this thread (the new one), Hasanuddin claims: Primarily marriage is about family, God, and society--legal aspects and verbal definitions are so trivial.

And you apparently took umbrage to this, by counter-claiming (in post #19): Either way, god plays about as much of a role in the event as the tooth fairy or easter bunny (or Thor, or Zeus, or Apollo, or any of the other thousands of figures laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology), but it's still a marriage all the same.

And I am asking you to cite references where what is spoken or written and shared during ceremonies makes use of these concepts? I believe you could find some cases where humans thank Zeus for the blessings of their union. Perhaps you find a case or two where tooth fairy is cited. But I assure you, I can cite dozens to thousands of cases where God is cited as a) present, b) blessing the union and c) in some cases where God is that which is the Union. God is the Love that binds. So, it would stand that in many cases, God plays a huge role for (some, I'd say vast majority of) humans and the way in which they choose to express their union in a very public way. I acknowledge that for you, the concept of God would be forbidden from the context. Perhaps I am mistaken in what I am assuming here, but do tell me if you feel you would tolerate (concept of) God in either vows you wrote, your spouse writes, or the person who performs the ceremony?

So, to summarize:
1 - While marriage neither requires god nor religion to still be a marriage, it is desired in the vast majority of human marriages, playing a significant role during the ceremony where the unison is said to (officially) occur.
2 - Agape Love = God. As does Life = God. There is no requirement for acceptance of these equivocations. You are free to believe this and/or to identify with concepts that work in your own worldview.
3 - Some equivocations, like Love = God have basis in both spiritual and philosophical literature, both ancient texts and modern ones. While these equivocations may be made, and held as acceptable by some or many, they may not be universally accepted by all. If terms are not universally accepted, this does not (alone) make them invalid.
4) Marriage is the experience of one form of human relationships. Like many constructs of human defined relationships, this is not predicated on sexual orientation, gender, race, age, etc.
5) I have yet to hear a single question I raised be squarely addressed by InfiniteNow, and if I don't get my way on this, I shall pick up my ball and go home. And then I'll tell my mommy on him. Or her. As the case may be.

[InfiniteNow]

Laughable I find your request for citations and evidence... a double standard at best considering practically every single point you've made is based on nothing more than a personal faith based blind assertion of some god concept.

Most of your questions are completely irrelevant to the topic or my stance, and I find most of them silly misrepresentations of my actual arguments. However, you seem to think I'm somehow not capable of responding to your "opus," ... so let me offer you the response you've requested so we can move this thread back on topic (which, this entire tangent with you, is not).

Originally Posted by Jway

As I stated, love as concept and practice is well grounded in traditions of religion and philosophy. It is from this usage that marriage ceremonies elaborate on the concept and from which human unions are defined. On this thread, I believe that matters. It is pertinent to the subject.

Indeed, which is why I brought it up. I mentioned the love of two same sex individuals, and you then were challenged when you equivocated god with love.

I pointed out how neither concept requires the other, despite your implications to the contrary.

I agree with your point in the quote above that the concept has been explored thoroughly in philosophy and religion. I don't deny that for a moment. However, your quote has nothing to do with my position, which was to point out to you that we do not need god to understand love, and that love is not limited to two individuals with different genitalia, nor only to theists and believers.

Originally Posted by Jway

Is there historical, philosophical, religious and spiritual examples to back up your equivalency claim? If yes, please cite these.

You are asking me this after I stated that your claim that "god equals love" is equivalent to a claim that "leprechauns equal euphoria." The thrust of my point, which I believe was rather obvious to even a child, is that there is no supporting evidence of this "god" to which you refer, and hence there is an equivalence to leprechauns, since there is no supporting evidence of their existence either. The comparison was that your attempt to equivocate a well understood neurophysiological concept (love) with an imaginary friend (god) was silly, and I used the example provided to illustrate this. I was using a similar, but less baggage laden, concept to provide example of how your assertion was unfounded, non-sequitur, and based on nothing more than your non-standard definition of love... a non-standard definition motivated by nothing more than your personal faith and worldview.

Quite simply, even people who believe in god, or who state that "god is love" would acknowledge that love is a stand alone concept, despite any overlap it has with their god concept.

Originally Posted by Jway

It matters as far as consensus goes. I was making point that this isn't my unique mental construct, and is something that humanity has thought for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

But this is a total red herring, as I never suggested or implied that your point was unique to you. This is part of what prompted my request for you to read my posts again. You were responding to points I never made.

I never challenged the idea that "lots of people think god equals love." No, not once. What I did do, however, was suggest that the number of people who hold this belief has zero bearing on the truth or relevance of the assertion, and further that a person can love another without the god concept ever once entering the equation.

Originally Posted by Jway

Perhaps. But I have provided a synonym that has historical and current basis in our world.

Perhaps, nothing. You CONTINUE to refer to this god concept, and you've failed to define what precisely that is. This is the challenge. God is nothing more than an ambiguously defined three letter word, and the thrust of my point is that the ceremony of marriage is in NO WAY contingent nor dependent upon that ambiguously defined three letter word.

You are trying to move the goal posts. For instance, you are now suggesting that god and love are synonyms. I challenge that assertion, as there are many things associated with the god concept which have zero to do with the love concept.

I accept that your personal worldview has a definition of the god concept which heavily overlaps with your love concept. No problems there. What I'm saying, though, is that love is definable in the contexts I provided, and it is NOT dependent on having an active belief in a god concept. I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make this point for you.

However, this is YET ANOTHER red herring... or, at the very least, you are desperately forgetting the context of the dialog. We are talking about marriage... specifically, marriage between two same sex partners, and the idea of love applies to those partners equally as it does with opposite sex partners.

This god mumbo jumbo is completely tangential, off-topic, and irrelevant.


Now, if you want to make the case that I... as an atheist... cannot feel love for another human being because I don't accept the existence of a magic sky pixie... some celestial dictator who is so petty as to require my belief and submission... then please do so. However, I'll tell you up front, you'll lose that battle, no matter how forcefully you close your eyes and plug your ears to arguments which are counter to your own.

Originally Posted by Jway

So, we are back to it being popularity contest. The views I am citing are hardly unique to me. I am claiming they are written in ancient texts, current literature and are addressed often in marriage ceremonies that I've attended. Your attempts to isolate them to my own ideology are so far inaccurate.

Again, COMPLETELY irrelevant to my point, and also a complete misrepresentation of the position I am putting forth.

My point is that truth is not based on popularity.
My point is that the concept of love is in no way dependent on the concept of god.
My point is that marriage is in no way dependent on these ancient texts to which you refer.

Not once have I suggested that your ideology is isolated or not shared by others, so stop with the strawmen already, will ya?

Originally Posted by Jway

And yet, for many [love = god]. I accept that for you it does not. And for several others that are like you. Could you concede that in reality we share that for several like me, it is equivocal?

Absolutely. I've stated exactly that repeatedly. For many people, love equals god. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or the points I've made.

Originally Posted by Jway

It's like that, but I don't believe I can cite either marriage ceremonies nor literature in human history where persons have said "bananas equal unicorns."

This is a completely silly comment, and a distortion of the position being put forth. Your response is further evidence that you have a critical comprehension failure when reading my posts. The point I was making was NOT that people... in marriage ceremonies... suggest that bananas equal unicorns. Further, my point was NOT that people... in marriage ceremonies... don't equivocate god with love. I could list millions of other things which were NOT my point.

Instead, I'll remind readers that my point is that ceremonies happen without god, and that love is still present, despite gods absence. It logically follows that god is not required for love, nor is god required for marriage.

This all began when I made the point that two same sex people love each other in precisely the same manner as two opposite sex people, and that there is no valid reason for disallowing them from uniting in marriage. Further, the point is that marriage itself is in no way whatsoever dependent on either religion or god, as evidenced by the fact that atheists have been marrying for countless years, and all without challenge.

Originally Posted by Jway

I am equivocating Love and God. Just as I equivocate Life and God.

Which was precisely my point. Why this whole chain of red herrings if you openly concede that you're doing what I said you were doing? What a ridiculous waste of time and server space this has become.

Originally Posted by Jway

Where did I concede that [love can exist without god]? Can you please quote this?

Sure thing.

Originally Posted by me

Love is a concept which does not need god for definition.

Originally Posted by you in response

I agree with this. ... The definition is not needed, though I observe that it is desired.

That was easy.

Originally Posted by Jway

if I must have physical proof that something is God and is only God (aka, I must validate dogma), then i may come up empty handed.

Correction. You WILL come up empty handed, as you've not defined your god concept in a falsifiable way which is consistently repeatable by others who hold a different worldview.

I do, however, appreciate your candor in acknowledging your inability in this regard.

Originally Posted by Jway

Okay by me. Just as Love as physical object, and something that can only be called love thus far is without physical proof. If you have such proof that Love exists, and only exists as Love within physical world, I'd be interested in said proof.

I'd first ask what the hell constitutes proof that's NOT within the physical world. I'd second show you some MRIs and PET scans, and third a mother holding her child. Proving love is simple, mostly because it has a consistent definition across cultures which does not hinge on a specific worldview based on bronze aged fairy tales and superstitions.

Originally Posted by Jway

I have and you have insinuated such. When you said this before:
"and really is nothing more than a bald assertion with no basis."

That insinuates that my equivocation is isolated to me.

No, sir. I beg to differ. It does not insinuate any such thing. Perhaps I could have been more precise with my language, and stated that you were making a "bald assertion with no basis in reality," but the fact remains... Just because countless religiot zombies happen to agree with your definition of love equals god does not somehow make it true, nor anything more than a bald assertion.

I posit that love is much more profound and wide spread than belief in god. This is supported by the simple fact that there are more people on this earth who love someone than there are people who believe in a deity, and also the fact that non-human animals have been shown to demonstrate love.

Originally Posted by Jway

So far, you have not offered up those explanations, so I'll stand here and continue to claim that (Agape) Love equals God.

Can we at least agree that a dictionary offers a close approximation of how love is defined? I mean, with the terms you're using, we could argue that no single word or concept is accepted by all people. That's hardly going to be helpful, nor is it representative of the points I was making (as summarized AGAIN above).

In further support of my stated position, the word "god" does not appear a single time on this page, not from any source listed:
define: love - Google Search

Originally Posted by Jway

Please do. And please link me to thread of which you speak. Personally, "neocortical mechanisms" being hijacked sounds like balooey. I understand the terms being used, but you are seemingly putting this forth as intention by religion. To do just what you feel is taking place in the hijacking process. As if religion would be unique to this as well. Wouldn't this be true of any dogma? Someone who is convinced in scientific dogma, wouldn't they be up to same thing?

I find great humor in the fact that you are critiquing a priori a work which you have not even seen. What else does your crystal ball tell you? Do you often completely reject scientific research before reading it?

Either way, you can look here (just bear in mind that religious and god talk is against their rules, so you'll have to stick to the science presented, and argue against the work on its merits, not on the fact that it doesn't align with your worldview).

Originally Posted by Jway

I'd add in there, that WE love ourselves. And WE love God.

And this is where your point fails. It'd be fine if you said that YOU love god, but the moment you try to externalize that position you lose all credibility. Also, to repeat, you've yet to offer a consistent definition for that ambiguously defined three letter word (god).

Originally Posted by Jway

But why? You are yet to explain homosexual love.

Really? You don't think I've explained it? Well, I disagree, and think I explained it in a very straight forward manner, in terms that even laymen could understand. I'm sorry if it was over your head.

Originally Posted by Jway

Correct, I wouldn't claim that God is completely irrelevant in some cases. I would concede that the concept and connotations of God is for some, in the proverbial room, irrelevant to how they feel in relation to others.

Like, I might claim that gravity is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing here. While you (and really I) would claim that the concept may be, but as experience and existence goes, no gravity is not completely irrelevant in cases where the concept is denied and deemed invalid.

No, you fail again. God is important to YOU... important to others on this planet... but not to the concept of marriage itself. Marriage happens without god. My point is truly that simple.

Originally Posted by Jway

Human constructed marriage ceremonies can occur without conceptual acknowledgment of God or Divine. Even in those cases, God is still relevant.

Yet another bald assertion, and an arrogant/condescending one at that. I challenge you to prove it. ... Prove to me that god was at all relevant in the marriage of all of my atheist friends. You won't, because you CAN'T. It's a bald assertion, and a fallacious one at that.

Originally Posted by Jway

Will you allow for inner observation and non physical evidence?

No, absolutely not. That does not meet the standard of evidence held by any reasonable or scientifically minded person.

Originally Posted by Jway

IMO, what I am saying is like saying gravity must be present if a marriage is occurring on earth. Can't see gravity and some people in room may say it is a myth and choose not to accept any theories which provide evidence of it at work. Shall we then conclude that for these people, not only is the concept of gravity irrelevant, but it is not present at their ceremonies, because of their convictions?

Oh, pull-eez. You can measure gravity. You can predict it's effects, and you can test it. You can do NONE of that with god, which is why I said you may as well be talking about the Ents (thanks REASON ).

Originally Posted by Jway

Nope dude. I'm pretty sure I'm spot on with your point.

But that doesn't mean you were. All you've done is get us into a completely off-topic tangent using silly semantic games motivated by unprovable worldviews which are not relevant to the concept of marriage itself (relevant to some people and their concept of marriage, but not marriage itself).




Now, let's talk about gay marriage. It should be legal, it should be called a marriage, and I will respond willingly to any further posts on that topic. This other god ridiculousness can be handled in another thread.

To reiterate, I will not be responding to any more of your posts in this thread unless they are specific in addressing (and somehow relevant to) the topic of gay marriage.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Jway

Mod team. Thanks for the split! Much appreciated.

You're welcome. Though, there is still have a problem. There are two themes in this new thread, "same-sex marriage" and "God in Marriage".

As these two themes are intertwined in most posts, it would be best if we continue this thread on the topic of "same sex marriage". Any further discussion about "God in marriage" should be saved for its own thread in the Theology Forum. Thanks.

[Jway]

Per moderator input, I'll stick to IN's recent points that address same sex marriage and in this thread will ignore the God in marriage stuff from this point forth.

...and after review of all the defensive, ad hominem, vitriol commentary, all of which I'd be glad to respond to on another thread, but not this one, I found this tucked at the bottom.

Now, let's talk about gay marriage. It should be legal, it should be called a marriage,

Funny thing is, we agree on this. Actually, not terribly funny, and I've known this for last few pages of discussion. Minus the "should" word, and I'm right there with you. Though your points (as usual) don't leave much room for discussion. And I pity the person who dares disagree with you on these assertions.

How about responding to the posts where I did bring up same-sex marriage, even if we agree? I realize it's not as fun, but perhaps you could show a brother a little love?

If only looking for point where we might disagree, perhaps there is the one where I am saying same-sex marriages would be gateway to other types of marriage. Really, there are very few examples I can think of that I believe would perhaps never be permissible by society. My point isn't that gateway is bad or wrong. The point is that with sense of entitlement that we have with (traditional) marriage unions, I think further forms of marriage could drain the system. In this view, I could easily see homosexuals, along with heterosexuals arguing against these other types of marriage. I can easily see those who favor monogamous marriages using claim that anything that is not monogamous is not a true marriage. While this is a jumping a bit ahead, again the point I am raising is that homosexual marriages could impact the system (of entitlements), causing a drain of funds and resources. And if not same-sex marriages, then I believe gateway effect could lead to this as well. I'm not convinced of this, but perhaps is something for further discussion.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Jway

I pity the person who dares disagree with you on these assertions.

As well you should.

Originally Posted by Jway

...there is the one where I am saying same-sex marriages would be gateway to other types of marriage. Really, there are very few examples I can think of that I believe would perhaps never be permissible by society. My point isn't that gateway is bad or wrong. The point is that with sense of entitlement that we have with (traditional) marriage unions, I think further forms of marriage could drain the system.

Quickly, this is what's known as the "slippery slope" fallacy, and for that reason alone could be safely dismissed as an argument against same sex marriage.

However, accepting it as a valid concern (which, I do), it's pretty important to your point to start said "slippery slope" at the correct precipice. Your argument, in fact, does not begin with gay marriage, but instead begins with state recognized marriage of any sort... even marriages among two opposite sex partners.

The simple fact is, the state IS involved in marriage, and it DOES already confer privileges and benefits as a result of those marriages. That's where your argument should focus if you wish to argue on the "drain the system" bandwagon... When you instead decide to launch your "drain the system" argument from the idea that we should allow same sex partners equal protection under our laws as opposite sex couples... you weaken the foundation on which your argument rests, and do yourself a great disservice since you are beginning with a faulty premise.


The challenge, of course, with arguing that the government should not have its hand in marriage is the difficulties which arise with the implied contracts of a marriage. In simple terms, without some sort of a notarized agreement or written contract, there are a multitude of questions which would arise and be sent to the courts... questions for which we need a consistent framework to provide adequate answers. As an example, if there is no preexisting written contract when a father and mother divorce, how shall rulings be made about their offspring? Or, let's say that one of the partners in the relationship dies, or goes on military leave... Without the implied contract of a marriage, how do we handle the legal issues, and the responsibility for bills unless we have... up front... some sort of official written contract between the spouses (written contracts which I postulate would almost never actually exist)? Government plays such a role in marriage because we need a consistent framework in our laws on which to base decisions about things like money, ownership, and debt responsibility.

Either way... your argument about slippery slopes and limited resources needs to start at the right place... and that place has nothing to do with gay marriage. It instead has everything to do with governmental involvement in marriage at all... For which good arguments can be put forth either for or against.

[Jway]

I'll take that as IN's version of "showing a brother a little love."

Earlier (somewhere in this universe) I believe I stated that the slippery slope starts with marriage of any sort. Thus, I would argue if we allow for gay marriage, which I favor, we now disallow for any (or at least some) entitlements. I think for case I am making, it would be mainly the entitlements that carry discriminatory tax benefits and social security (added) benefits. There may be more than this. I say get marriage out of that 'business' but allow people to form private contracts that deal with issues that are based on their union as if state is not directly involved.

Now someone could counter with why start this with marriage, and why not push for it in hetero marriage now? I think that is fair question, but it really is gateway thing I am looking at. If same sex marriages got same tax benefits, I think we as a society will be okay. Though perhaps not, but I think so. It's the polygamous marriages and perhaps other forms that I could see really testing things. I'm not worried about this, and if it happened, I'd probably grab the popcorn and watch with bit of glee. Just something to consider while we do move forward with concept of marriage as social event.

[Boerseun]

I think we've conclusively shown homosexuality to be natural.

Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish.

Marriage used to be a religious institution, but from the point of view of a secular state, a marriage is nothing more and nothing less than merely a civil union, and a device to ensure legal clarity to any offspring that the particular union might have. Nowhere does the concept demand a certain array of genitalia to be present.

Your revulsion to the concept springs from the fact that marriages traditionally have been between members of the opposite sex. And traditions change, it just takes a bit of time. But marriage is a civil union, and does not require any deity to bless it or approve of it. Consider it a "pooling of resources" between two individuals in the struggle for survival.