Your stance on gay marriage

[Grave_n_idle]

...or you're simply behaving in a fundamentalist fashion (asserting that marriage is not religious is a "fact," when in fact it is no such thing).

Marriage is not inherently or intrinsically religious.

Someone can make their marriage religious, or attach religion to it, but that's all an aside - marriage itself is not religious.

If I tried to argue toast is religious, because it's religious to me, you'd laugh at me - and be quite right to do so - because toast is just hot bread. I might have religious experiences with it, but that's my baggage, nothing to do with the nature of toast itself.

Seriously, attempting to enforce your own opinion (yes, that's right, NOT FACT) that marriage is (or should be) "not religious" is fucking bogus and is NOT helping the cause of same-sex marriage;

You, yourself, have already said it's irrelevant to the issue.

it simply alienates those who might be OTHERWISE willing to listen to your arguments.

I don't care about that. Anyone who is going to slap their hands over their ears because I point out that marriage is not religious, is not going to listen to my other arguments anyway.

[Grave_n_idle]

3) Have ever two gay HUMANS done this? No? So that makes any arguing here useless.

Yes. A gay man and a gay woman could have a child - although obviously it would not be their choice of partner.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ah you think that the first marriage was gay? When marriage was (according to history) invented gay marriage was untinkable of.

Source?

If you're under the impression that religion was invented by Christians or Jews, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

And of course it is worse than heterosxual marriage! Why? First, because it's abnormal and dirty, and Seccond because it cannot give the society any use (no babies!)

There is no requirement for marriage to produce children. Further, marriage isn't required for the production of children.

This attempt to link marriage (rights) to reproduction is a red herring.

[Dusk_Kittens]

The current population is not sustainable with the extant resources of the planet, which is why we are using up not only non-renewable resources, but even those which, if managed properly in the context of a sustainable population, would be renewable.


Source


Source

See also:
http://populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/population_problem.pdf

Hmm... well that's all very interesting and everything, and I do mean it DK, but as a free marketer, I see no issues with overpopulation. Standing Room Only is a chapter (22)in Julien Simons book, The Ultimate Resource handles your concerns most articulately.

...population growth is neither constant nor inexorable; it is not smoothly geometric, as Malthus thought it to be. Population grows at various rates under various conditions. Sometimes population size shrinks for centuries due to poor political and health conditions. That is, economic, cultural, and political events, and not just catastrophe, control population size. But recently conditions have improved dramatically and population has added another growth spurt - joyous news for humanity.

Simon addresses the demographics, the population density, the stock of resources etc etc. Have a gander. I don't know if you're a free market guy so, if you reject the unhampered market, then this source will likely serve you no purpose. I thought I'd post it anyway, just in case you were curious.

While it is true that population growth is not constant or inexorable, and not smoothly geometric, that various factors influence it (indeed, the sources I referenced suggest that it is declining and will reach zero growth in the not-too-distant future), this does not address the current world population and the necessary level of resources to sustain even that current population. One of the most disturbing aspects of this is the matter of potable water, and this is not merely abstract mathematical gymnastics; potable water is rapidly becoming a greater concern for everyone (even in the US, as we see prices on bottled water increasing steadily, and while the inflated prices can be ascribed in part to the increased cost of petroleum, that's not the sole factor).

As for my economic views (although I don't want to derail the topic, so if you want to discuss this further, we can take it to TG), I do not favor capitalism, socialism, communism, mercantilism, or feudalism. My ideal economic system is tribal (i.e., a "cooperative economy," and one in which land is owned by the tribe as a whole, and portions thereof are allotted to individual extended families within the tribe in a stewardship fashion, for them to produce what they need and contribute to the whole tribe by means of barter/trade -- which does not rule out the possibility of sale for "money," although in my system, "money" would have some more or less "intrinsic" value rather than consisting of base metals and/or paper and ink; I tend to favor a coinage minted from silver and copper for the purpose of "money"). In the meantime (that is, until/unless economic tribalism is restored), however, of the currently fashionable economic philosophies, I would probably tend toward some level of socialism; I cannot support unbridled capitalism for three main reasons: 1. corporations have demonstrated clearly and repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate, but will instead pursue increased profit at any expense, 2. consumers cannot regulate corporations by refusing to patronize them in an unbridled capitalist economy, because such an economy would allow monopolies (and then, of course, the consumer has no choice but to patronize the only corporation offering a needed good or service), and 3. political freedom/equality depends to an extent on economic freedom/equality (and by "economic freedom," I do not mean unrestricted capitalism, but rather, an economic status which does not involve such things as sweatshops, wage slavery, lesser educational opportunities, etc, simply because of the lack of economic clout of one's parents, and which does not allow greater liberties and opportunities to the heirs of the wealthy who themselves have done nothing to earn any preferential status; meritocracy is a word I like, and while I do support private property, I also recognize that the principle of private property is at times taken to ludicrous extremes -- why should any person, through no effort of his/her own, hold so much wealth that he/she can buy a small nation, while other people, through no fault of their own, are forced into wage slavery and/or illness/death due to malnutrition, starvation, and/or disease which can be easily treated IF the person can afford such treatment?).

[Dusk_Kittens]

...or you're simply behaving in a fundamentalist fashion (asserting that marriage is not religious is a "fact," when in fact it is no such thing).

Marriage is not inherently or intrinsically religious.

Someone can make their marriage religious, or attach religion to it, but that's all an aside - marriage itself is not religious.

If I tried to argue toast is religious, because it's religious to me, you'd laugh at me - and be quite right to do so - because toast is just hot bread. I might have religious experiences with it, but that's my baggage, nothing to do with the nature of toast itself.

Seriously, attempting to enforce your own opinion (yes, that's right, NOT FACT) that marriage is (or should be) "not religious" is fucking bogus and is NOT helping the cause of same-sex marriage;

You, yourself, have already said it's irrelevant to the issue.

it simply alienates those who might be OTHERWISE willing to listen to your arguments.

I don't care about that. Anyone who is going to slap their hands over their ears because I point out that marriage is not religious, is not going to listen to my other arguments anyway.

The problem here is the wording: "Marriage is not religious." That will alienate people who view their marriage as religious, and they are more likely to stop listening at that point than if you simply said "Marriage is not universally religious" or "Marriage is not necessarily religious," either of which would be easier for them to stomach. You are generalizing from your own view of marriage, and that's fallacious, because your view is itself not universal. The only necessary refutation of your assertion is "there is some x such that x is religious and x is marriage," which is, regardless of your personal beliefs and/or feelings on the matter, verity.

The challenge lies in your assumption that you are "pointing out that marriage is not religious." That's inaccurate; you are asserting your personal view of marriage as universal fact, when it is not.

Now, my culturally-based view is that marriage is a civil contract between two or more consenting adults, but that's based on the historical laws and ethical teachings of my heritage, and is therefore also not capable of generalization to marriage as a whole nor in every particular (since my cultural heritage is not shared by all). However, it does have the virtue of not denying that marriage can be lived in tune with one's religious views, or even be interwoven with mystical beliefs and techniques to such an extent as to be considered a religious union.

That, I believe, is the way forward: to omit any denial of the potential religiosity of marriage, while nevertheless pointing out that, for socio-political/legal/economic purposes, marriage is defined as "a civil union between" ... however many consenting adults (and in the case of US law, the number is, currently, two, although I personally view this restriction as a violation of a right to be polygamous, and based largely on religious dogma).

If any legal mention is made of the religiosity (or lack thereof) of marriage, then, because of the First Amendment, all that should be said is "marriage is not universally religious, and is not the exclusive property of any one religion nor even of religion in general." That much is factual. To go further and state "marriage is not religious" or "marriage is a secular institution" would not only be the expression of opinion rather than fact, but would also be a violation of the First Amendment, which protects not only you from the establishment of a state cult (and I'm not using the word "cult" here in a pejorative fashion, but rather in the older fashion which has no negative emotive value), but also protects religious people from legislative prohibition of the free exercise of their religion.

The US government does not have the authority to deny the potential religiosity of marriage, anymore than it has the authority to affirm any supposedly necessary religiosity of marriage.

In short, yes, the question of whether or not marriage is religious is irrelevant as far as US law is concerned, and should not be addressed by the US government beyond a mere repetition of the FACTS that 1. while some marriages are religious, not all marriages are religious, 2. while some may elect to celebrate/inaugurate their marriage by religious ceremony, not all have done so, and therefore it is obvious that 3. marriage is neither exclusively nor universally religious, nor does the concept belong to any particular religion or religion in general: hence religious considerations pertaining to marriage are not the business of government to entertain, while at the same time, government recognizes that some religions have doctrinal and practical teachings concerning marriage for their own adherents, teachings which are not to be imposed by civil law on anyone (as doing so would violate the First Amendment).

[Distruzio]

So, you FAVOUR gay marriage then ? After all, contrary to what one might expect at first glance, research has indicated that populations of animals in which about 10% is homosexual are more succesfull (as a population) at reproducing So if you want more babies, get more gays !

Of course, if 90% of the population would be gay instead of 10% that might but a little damper on the enthousiasm humans have to breed - but then again, if 90% were gay I doubt the outcome of a vote on this issue would be "no, gays can not marry"

I do favor gay marriage. Just not a federal level decision on the matter.

[Callosamia]

I never understood the "gay marriages don't produce children" argument. Apart from the points that 1. they can and 2. the world is overpopulated, wouldn't this also mean infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married? And couples that don't really plan on having children? Since when did marriage come to mean "churn out babies" Hell, might as well make it a law that any married couple that doesn't produce children within two years of their marriage should be forcibly divorced.

[Dyakovo]

No, some people choose to attach a religious ceremony to a secular institution.

The ceremony is called a "wedding." The actual union is "marriage,"¹ and yes, it IS religious for some people (whether you like it or not)² -- including some people who have absolutely NO objection to same-sex marriage. Stop trying to push a secular view of marriage onto everyone;³ it's not necessary for a LEGAL justification for same-sex marriage.⁴

The key points are that it is not UNIVERSALLY religious (that is, not all marriages -- or wedding ceremonies, for that matter -- are religious) and that it is not the property of any one sect, nor any one religion, nor even of religion in general. That alone is sufficient justification for the legislature or the judiciary to support same-sex marriage.

1: No shit? Here I thought I had a marriage and have been weddinged all these years...
2: People considering it religious does not make it religious.
3: No, I will continue trying to push reality onto people whether you or they like it or not.
4: Necessary or not it is reality. Not my problem that some people can't handle reality.

[Dusk_Kittens]

The ceremony is called a "wedding." The actual union is "marriage,"¹ and yes, it IS religious for some people (whether you like it or not)² -- including some people who have absolutely NO objection to same-sex marriage. Stop trying to push a secular view of marriage onto everyone;³ it's not necessary for a LEGAL justification for same-sex marriage.⁴

The key points are that it is not UNIVERSALLY religious (that is, not all marriages -- or wedding ceremonies, for that matter -- are religious) and that it is not the property of any one sect, nor any one religion, nor even of religion in general. That alone is sufficient justification for the legislature or the judiciary to support same-sex marriage.

1: No shit? Here I thought I had a marriage and have been weddinged all these years...
2: People considering it religious does not make it religious.
3: No, I will continue trying to push reality onto people whether you or they like it or not.
4: Necessary or not it is reality. Not my problem that some people can't handle reality.

1. The point is one of equivocation. A wedding is unequivocally a ceremony, whereas "marriage" is used ambiguously to refer to either the ceremony or the union itself. Your claim was "...some people choose to attach a religious ceremony to a secular institution." The ceremony itself may or may not be religious, but that says nothing about the union. A religious ceremony does not guarantee a religious union, nor does a secular ceremony (or even lack of any formal ceremony at all) require the union to be non-religious. Equivocation, hon, is a fallacy.

2. It makes it religious for them. Your view does not get preferential treatment, nor does it get to be enshrined in law, anymore than theirs does. The fact that both you and they must allow each other to hold personal beliefs is good.

3. Then you lose by virtue of inflexibility, which will only increase opposition to the goal of legal same-sex marriage. Your beliefs about "reality" are beliefs, not facts. While marriage may be a secular institution for some, it is not for all. No matter what form imperialism takes, it's bad (this also means that religious proselytizing is bad, by the way, since it is a form of imperialism, although it is permitted by law). Not everyone agrees with you. Deal with it.

4. Again you are asserting that your opinion carries the weight of fact. It does not. Live and let live. The cause here is same-sex marriage, and not enforcing your views of religion on others. The First Amendment is a two-edged sword; it protects everyone from state-imposed religion, and it protects the religious from state-imposed atheism. No matter what form imperialism takes, it's bad. Deal with it.

[Dyakovo]

1: No shit? Here I thought I had a marriage and have been weddinged all these years...
2: People considering it religious does not make it religious.
3: No, I will continue trying to push reality onto people whether you or they like it or not.
4: Necessary or not it is reality. Not my problem that some people can't handle reality.

1. The point is one of equivocation. A wedding is unequivocally a ceremony, whereas "marriage" is used ambiguously to refer to either the ceremony or the union itself. Your claim was "...some people choose to attach a religious ceremony to a secular institution." The ceremony itself may or may not be religious, but that says nothing about the union. A religious ceremony does not guarantee a religious union, nor does a secular ceremony (or even lack of any formal ceremony at all) require the union to be non-religious. Equivocation, hon, is a fallacy.

2. It makes it religious for them. Your view does not get preferential treatment, nor does it get to be enshrined in law, anymore than theirs does. The fact that both you and they must allow each other to hold personal beliefs is good.

3. Then you lose by virtue of inflexibility, which will only increase opposition to the goal of legal same-sex marriage. Your beliefs about "reality" are beliefs, not facts. While marriage may be a secular institution for some, it is not for all. No matter what form imperialism takes, it's bad (this also means that religious proselytizing is bad, by the way, since it is a form of imperialism, although it is permitted by law). Not everyone agrees with you. Deal with it.

4. Again you are asserting that your opinion carries the weight of fact. It does not. Live and let live. The cause here is same-sex marriage, and not enforcing your views of religion on others. The First Amendment is a two-edged sword; it protects everyone from state-imposed religion, and it protects the religious from state-imposed atheism. No matter what form imperialism takes, it's bad. Deal with it.

2: Again, just because they consider it religious, does not make it so.
3: Wrong. Every marriage (In the US at least) is secular.
4: Because it does (at least in this instance).

[Takaram]

Completely for it.

So, you FAVOUR gay marriage then ? After all, contrary to what one might expect at first glance, research has indicated that populations of animals in which about 10% is homosexual are more succesfull (as a population) at reproducing So if you want more babies, get more gays !

Of course, if 90% of the population would be gay instead of 10% that might but a little damper on the enthousiasm humans have to breed - but then again, if 90% were gay I doubt the outcome of a vote on this issue would be "no, gays can not marry"

I do favor gay marriage. Just not a federal level decision on the matter.

Which is fine, as long as heterosexual marriage is also not recognized on a federal level. Anything else would be discrimination on the government's part.

[Tekania]

1: No shit? Here I thought I had a marriage and have been weddinged all these years...
2: People considering it religious does not make it religious.
3: No, I will continue trying to push reality onto people whether you or they like it or not.
4: Necessary or not it is reality. Not my problem that some people can't handle reality.

That people consider it religious does in fact make it religious for them. As YOU are not a party to THEIR marriage your opinion does not matter (and most certainly is not fact).

I think the problem here is that YOU can't fucking handle reality.

[Dyakovo]

1: No shit? Here I thought I had a marriage and have been weddinged all these years...
2: People considering it religious does not make it religious.
3: No, I will continue trying to push reality onto people whether you or they like it or not.
4: Necessary or not it is reality. Not my problem that some people can't handle reality.

That people consider it religious does in fact make it religious for them. As YOU are not a party to THEIR marriage your opinion does not matter (and most certainly is not fact).

I think the problem here is that YOU can't fucking handle reality.

No, it doesn't. For their marriage to be valid they still need a marriage license... Ergo, it is secular. They have simply decided to attach a religious ceremony to it.

[Bottle]

1: No shit? Here I thought I had a marriage and have been weddinged all these years...
2: People considering it religious does not make it religious.
3: No, I will continue trying to push reality onto people whether you or they like it or not.
4: Necessary or not it is reality. Not my problem that some people can't handle reality.

That people consider it religious does in fact make it religious for them. As YOU are not a party to THEIR marriage your opinion does not matter (and most certainly is not fact).

I think the problem here is that YOU can't fucking handle reality.

Actually, when it comes to marriage, outside "opinions" are usually at least 50% of the POINT.

Marriage is about having your community/society acknowledge your relationship. That's the function of formal marriages. That's the function of public ceremonies. If two people want to secretly marry, never tell anybody else, and never seek any form of legal or civil benefits, then sure, they CAN do that. But I think you'd agree that the number of people who marry in that manner is vanishingly small. The POINT of the wedding is for one's loved ones to publicly acknowledge and celebrate the union. The POINT of the marriage license is to gain legal recognition of the union, and legal recognition is "outside opinion" on a formal scale.

It really doesn't matter if a particular couple attaches religious significance to their union, when you are talking about the legal recognition of that union, or even the social recognition of it. At least in the USA.

[Samuraikoku]

That people consider it religious does in fact make it religious for them. As YOU are not a party to THEIR marriage your opinion does not matter (and most certainly is not fact).

I think the problem here is that YOU can't fucking handle reality.

I think the problem here is that YOU are ignorant of the law.

[PrncssOfCuddles]

I'd have a gay marriage if I found a woman I wanted to marry.

[Tolanii]

In American government, you are allowed The pursuit of happiness, as long as it's safe for you and everyone else. I've never heard of two gays getting together and starting a relationship having killed anyone, so it's perfectly fair. Why it's not legal, I don't even know. Is it religious folk, voting against what they consider blasphemy? Stubborn homophobics? Right-wing conservatives? I'm not sure. The last two in most places are just a little taboo, because of their reputations.

[Ifreann]

I'd have a gay marriage if I found a woman I wanted to marry.

Hawt.

[Samuraikoku]

In American government, you are allowed The pursuit of happiness, as long as it's safe for you and everyone else. I've never heard of two gays getting together and starting a relationship having killed anyone.

Who knows, there might have been right-wing conservatives who suffered a heart attack or something like that because of gay marriage... (*nods*)

[Salandriagado]

Ah you think that the first marriage was gay? When marriage was (according to history) invented gay marriage was untinkable of.

Nope, sorry. Gay marriage pre-dates banning it by some millennia.

And of course it is worse than heterosxual marriage! Why? First, because it's abnormal and dirty,

Not an argument, just bigotry.

and Seccond because it cannot give the society any use (no babies!)

Now, people have got rid of this point already, but I'll take a different approach.

Right at this moment in time, producing children does not help society. With the population still rising faster than can be sustained and projected to continue, it's either irresponsible or downright immoral.

[Arumdaum]

...And the trolling begins...

It is no more an invention than heterosexual marriage, and certainly no worse.

Ah you think that the first marriage was gay? When marriage was (according to history) invented gay marriage was untinkable of.

How are you so sure the first marriage wasn't gay marriage? What, you saw it or something? Also, who cares who does first? The Chinese were the first to use the printing press. Does that mean only they get to use it?

Also, a long time ago in history, in some places, gay marriage was normal. Well modern times too, but, you get what I'm saying.

And of course it is worse than heterosxual marriage! Why? First, because it's abnormal and dirty,

How so? Because you think it's gross, like how the KKK hate interracial marriage?

and Seccond because it cannot give the society any use (no babies!)

So the sterile and people that don't want kids shouldn't be able to marry?

[Desperate Measures]

I'd have a gay marriage if I found a woman I wanted to marry.

Hawt.

Women together are invariably hot and just barely 18. put that on the internet and add some religious stuff to satisfy my fetish.

[The Alma Mater]

So the sterile and people that don't want kids shouldn't be able to marry?

Actually, logically, pregnancy should be a requirement for marriage following this reasoning.

Wild unprotected sex before marriage. The Christian thing to do (tm) !

[Arumdaum]

So the sterile and people that don't want kids shouldn't be able to marry?

Actually, logically, pregnancy should be a requirement for marriage following this reasoning.

Wild unprotected sex before marriage. The Christian thing to do (tm) !

[New Rogernomics]

Actually, logically, pregnancy should be a requirement for marriage following this reasoning.

Wild unprotected sex before marriage. The Christian thing to do (tm) !

Alexander the great and his generals did it all the time; and had wives on the side. So maybe we should be questioning the heterosexuality of people that hate homosexuals; they aren't man enough to go all the way.