I'm kinda scared now.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Don't be. It is agape' love. ;) :D

Besides...she can't love you, I loved you first....

Which is it gonna be?

Me...or her?


**cue soap opera music**

With emphasis on the "substantial portion." Not the entire structure of American Law.

The decision here is not on civil unions, but marriage.

Right?

A quick comment on the New Testiment replacing the Old -- from the Christian viewpoint. Not everyone is Christian.

I was gonna cue Prince's Beautiful Ones.

That will work..so...now..make your choice.

No, not the entire structure, but a very substantial portion. I'm not advocating that we should reference the Bible when states determine that they desire to continue the tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman.

You're right, the decision here is on marriage. However, people are complaining about gay couples not having equal access the things that accompany marriage, but in CA...they did. So what does that mean? Equality isn't sufficient unless they're allowed to force their way into an establishment they traditionally haven't been a part of?

This argument is about semantics for a lot of people, but the continued efforts of the gay community, even when receiving something mirroring marriage, provides valuable insight to the goals of their movement.

So to liberals and gay persons, would nationwide civil unions, if not called marriage, be sufficient?

probably not, marriage is marriage, if someone is gay and christian they would want the same sacrement:

but here is my question

couldn't the catholic church sue anyone who calls it "marriage" since they were the ones who made it a sacrement?

seriously, shouldn't everyone who is not catholic call it something else?

We said this a few pages back. ;)

They made it a sacrament for Roman Catholics only. They don't have power over anybody else. However, since marriage existed prior to that, then no, they couldn't sue. They don't own the term marriage or else no other religions would be able to use it either.

If you're going to call it a civil union for everybody who doesn't get married in a church, then fine. Or should I say, doesn't get unioned in a church? Why create more red tape and bureaucracy when we already have such a thing, called marriage? Why do we want to continue to inflate our government? Double the forms, double the requirements, etc. For what? Seems like a waste of resources to me.

And, if you're going to use the biological argument that the only purpose of marriage is procreation then you better ban it for everybody who is sterile too, whether by choice or by nature. "Oops, sorry, you had the mumps when you were 10 and are sterile now? No marriage license for you!"

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why only certain marriages would be allowed...why can't someone marry a cow? You can eat the cow, you won't torture the cow...why can't you marry it? And if you're both adults why can't a father and daughter get married?

Please, keep morality and religion out of it since you're not fans of that nonesense. Thanks.

Animals cannot give consent to be married.

They can consent to be killed? How about father and daughter?

Once you remove the argument of morality, I just don't see where it ends.

This is so not an argument about semantics. This was discussed I thought really well a few pages ago, but to re-visit the question, NO, civil unions or domestic partnerships ARE NOT nearly the same as marriage. Read here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html for full info. Prime points below:

Definitions

“Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex.
* Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples (since 2004). On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. When the ruling goes into effect in June 2008, California will be the second state to legalize same-sex marriages.

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.
* Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007).

“Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples. Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level.
* Statewide laws in California, Hawaii, and Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples.

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

Agreed. In fact, why not retire the term "marriage" altogether?

Consanguinity? Probably the same reason siblings can't get married...

hijack

If we're going to argue that one should have the freedom to pledge one's love to whomever one chooses, then should siblings be allowed to marry?

If they don't have kids, then it's ok? if you're a royal then it's ok to enjoy marryin family members?

It just doesnt hold.

I don't know that I would fight against incestuous marriages if they were ever to be up for national discussion. Anyway, I went to high school with a guy who grew up with his step-sister from the time they were infants. They ended up marrying.

Ahh, but now you are mixing biology with the very human concept of marriage.

As I understood your statement, you wanted a reason other than religion. Biology exists outside religion.

From a purely biological standpoint, your assumption would be right - for those who are sterile, they can not procreate. There would be no biological advantage to do so. But, since humans do crazy things like fall in love, the basic biological urge to mate with the best fit goes out of the window.

Nah because I want my marriage to be considered a "marriage." :)

I know you're kidding but I'm amused when people try to throw the baby out with the bath water. They think that gay marriage means having to completely do away with certain terminology and some even think that we'd have to allow people to marry children or animals (Rudey is a riot but there are people who actually use that response in real life).

Aha!!!

So gay marriage is okay in the Book of Biology, afterall. :)

And we know that homosexuals have used sperm banks, surrogate mothers, adoption and other methods of "having" children for years, when laws and policies have permitted.

No, not at all. Go back and read my post #162.

What I said was that from a biological point, two opposite genders mate under the guise that they are the most genetically fit - each of them, the male and female, make a contribution to produce the best offspring.

With those of like gender, only one would be able to make the contribution from that particualr couple, not both. Certainly the gay couple can adopt and use a surrogate mother, but the baby would only have the genetic contribution from one gay parent, not both.

The emphasis of the species is to have both parental contribution, not one.

That reminds me of an article I read--two teenagers fell in love and finally introduced their parents. Their parents fell in love and married, making them step-siblings. The family had to move because the teens were horribly bullied when they continued dating. Personally, I thought it was selfish for the parents to start dating when they knew that would put their kids in an awkward position, but anyway...


That was the point of my hijack--I just wondered if anyone would say this. ;)

That was directed more at people who are asking if gays would be satisfied with civil unions that provide identical rights that marriage does. So, I'm wondering if married people would mind retiring marriage in favor of civil unions... if they afford the same rights, of course. If not, why? Jus' wonderin'.

The problem with this argument is that reproduction and marriage occur independently from one another. They are not dependent on each other in any way.

If the only goal of marriage was reproduction, then this argument would hold true. However, the goal of marriage has nothing to do with reproduction for many people (those who are sterile, those who choose not to have children, and homosexuals). In fact, sexual frequency goes down after marriage, which also tends to negate this argument:

In general, surveys reveal that cohabitation is a "sexier" living arrangement than is marriage. That is, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual male couples tend to have sexual intercourse (defined as genital contact) more frequently than married couples (Blumstein and Schwartz 1983; Call, Sprecher, and Schwartz 1995; Rao and DeMaris 1995). http://family.jrank.org/pages/1102/M...Frequency.html

Personally, I think anybody who wants to get married at all is nuts because, in my experience, it's a total nightmare, but if people (whether hetero or homosexual) want to do it, that's up to them. :)

I don't see the point of doing away with the term "marriage" and replacing it with civil union. It seems like an unnecessary, impractical, and expensive proposition to me.

AGDee I feel that you are missing my point. There is no problem with my argument because I stated that biology exists outside the concept of marriage. You need not have one to have the other. You asked for a reason other than religion and the reason I give is a biological one.

Now, we as humans have connected the biological aspect of procreation to marriage, but for animals, they still procreate without getting married - horses, pigs, dogs, lions. All of these animals produce offspring without the benefit of marriage.

My point from a biological perspective is that gays can not fully contribute to perpetuation of the species in a biological sense since two of the same gender can not produce offspring. Therefore, gays can not fully contribute their genetic material to the gene pool.

As AGdee noted, reproduction and marriage occur independently of one another. Gays don't have children whether married or not, so it's not a reason to exclude them from marriage.

I think it is often an argument about semantics. A lot of conservatives feel this way, me being one. I really don't care if gays are given treatment similar to married couples. However, I will resist efforts to include homosexuals under the label of "marriage," because in my mind and the minds of millions of Americans, they simply don't meet the definition of the term.

Hence me asking about nationwide civil unions (meaning federally recognized).

Of course, many on my side of this argument will say they shouldn't be given equal benefits because the same motivations aren't present. I think their argument is valid, I just don't care enough to fight for it.

Nobody seems able to answer why someone can't marry their pet, their sister, or engage in polygamy. Sure, sure you judge it as a bad thing but I'm sure the people that engage in it would rather not be judged for what they do in their own time.

I've said this too, several times.



As is true for many heterosexual relationships.

But, yes it is. If you strip away the religious connection and just look at marriage in terms of a legally recognized life long committed monogomous relationship, then there is no way for that homosexual couple to contribute each of their genes together in the gene pool by way of producing offspring.

For the man or woman who may be married to the opposite sex but may be sterile, there is the understood notion that given the theoretical chance, that couple could conceive together. With a homosexual couple that theoretical chance could never even happen.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...0463170435.jpg

sorry, couldn't resist :p

Because they can't.

I think this another part of the issue with gays getting married. The fear is that if you let them get married, then why stop there? Why not let people marry their pets (this was actually part of an episode on Southpark), sister or openly and legally engage in polygamy.

As noted earlier, this issue becomes a very slippery slope. How do you know when to stop. Because just as gays feel that their rights are being violated, then those that want to marry their pig, sister, neighbor's girls who live down the street will want to fight for the same right.

All in all, the only group who would benefit from all these marriages would be Target's bridal registry. :p

:p

Yeah, I saw this too. This person is still physically a woman. She has been taking hormones to look like a man, but she was born a woman with obviously a functioning uterus. His (her) wife could not bear children, so he (she) did. They conceived through artificial insemination if I remeber correctly.

Honestly, I wouldn't give a damn if someone wanted to marry their sister or more than one person.

This is actually pretty easily answered -- two adults have the capacity to consent and others are not hurt by their decision to marry. An animal/child doesn't have the capacity to consent.

As for incest, the likelihood of birth defects means that your decision to procreate hurts others.

Gays being married really hurts no one.

Coming from you, I am not surprised. :p

Agree 110% ;)

I agree with this too.

But, an argument presented to me was that the basic human rights of gays are being denied because they can not marry who they want. Couldn't someone who wants to marry their pig say the same thing? Their basic human rights to marry who they want is being denied? Because they know their pig loves them as much as they do and the best way to express their love is to marry their pig.


On a day to day basis, no. In terms of a moral fabric, I feel yes, it does.