Your stance on gay marriage

[Bottle]

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.

You're right, and maybe once Dyokovo and Grave get this through their think fucking skulls, it will no longer be an issue.

Honestly not sure what you're on about, Grave's opinion is the same as what I'm saying:

IT DOESN'T MATTER if you, subjectively, think your marriage is religious or not. As far as the OBJECTIVE recognition of your union goes, your marriage is secular, no matter what you think.

[Intangelon]

Or, none of your fucking business.

Sadly for you I make everything my business.

After all in a democracy it is our business to legislate on whatever we choose to...and dont you ever forget it

Swing and a miss. Look at the italics, and laugh instead of taking yourself entirely too seriously.

[The Halbetan Union]

DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional in three separate cases by federal judges:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=113703&p=5709587#p5709587

So far, nobody has bothered to go all the way to the Supreme Court with it, but when they do, it will be ruled unconstitutional there as well. If it isn't, then we may need to consider fertilizing the roots of the liberty tree with the blood of tyrants (which is its natural manure).

Can we please drop the DOMA bullshit now?

So you don't know, and you're threatening violence if you don't get what you want? How are you any better than the bigots that passed the law in the first place?

To put things simply for you, the Supreme Court is under no obligation to rule DOMA unconstitutional due to precedence. It would be nice if they would, but I doubt; if it is brought to the floor, if the justices would do the right thing. Especially since challenges against DOMA have failed before.

[Dusk_Kittens]

The problem here is the wording: "Marriage is not religious." That will alienate people who view their marriage as religious,

I don;t care if it alienates someone. I'm not going to pretend reality is different than it is, just to avoid upsetting someone.

More than one issue is involved in what's going on here.

The first is found in the next bit ...

...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,

Not at all. My own wedding was[p/i] religious. We married in a church, with a preacher and all the trimmings. We had a traditional Southern Baptist wedding.

But that was the wedding, which is a ceremony. We weren't officially 'married' until the paperwork was done. Which means my [i]wedding was religious, but my marriage is secular.

Equivocation occurs when one word has more than one meaning in common parlance, and the word is used by two or more parties in dialogue, with one assuming only one of those meanings, or using the two ambiguously.

"Wedding" is unambiguous; it refers to ritual, ceremony, rite, whatever that (theoretically) inaugural or public acknowledgment that two (or more) consenting adults have chosen to form a bond between themselves, which is customarily dubbed "marriage." It is a social term. It is not necessary for law to recognize a marriage, and hence, need not be considered in connection with marriage except insofar as "marriage" is itself an ambiguous word, which can be used to name the ceremony as well as the state/status/union/bond itself.

"Wedding" may be religious. It may be non-religious. It may consist of no greater formality than paying a fee, the legally required signing of documents in front of witnesses, and the governmental/public recording of such documents (which of course, for some people, does not constitute "ceremony" at all, since they tend toward iconoclasm in relation to traditional custom, rebels without cause or clue). -----
"Wedding ceremony," also, has not a damned thing to do with what we're talking about (as you and I both recognize), since what we are talking about is the legality and constitutional imperative in connection with same-sex marriage ("marriage" here referring not to the ceremony, but to the bond, the daily living of the relationship, for a typically much longer duration than the ceremony).

-- Not that traditional custom is always a lovely thing worth preserving, either,
but of course that's a matter for another thread entirely --

In discussing such a union and utilizing the unfortunately ambiguous term "marriage" to refer to it, some confusion is bound to result. I'm not saying that same-sex marriage should be called something euphemistic and patronizing. I am saying that in such discussions we need to make clear what we mean when we say "marriage." Why? Behold:

Some people are assuming that we are advocating for same-sex wedding ceremonies (which really having nothing to do with what we are advocating, except insofar as the couple may of course choose to involve in their own union), and making a leap, perhaps encouraged by rumor, that what we are saying is that churches should be forced by law to perform religious ceremonies for same-sex couples, which is of course NOT what we are saying at all.

Some people understand that we are advocating for the bond/union/status that is recognized by law under the name "marriage" to be extended to all consenting adults regardless of whether they are share the same sexual chromosomes, the same gender identity, the same external physical characteristics or not.

Unfortunately, some who understand that nevertheless oppose it.

The history of the debate shows two motivations as predominant motives for opposing same-sex marriage: 1. the belief that marriage is somehow exclusively religious, and that it is likewise somehow the property of a particular religion, or of a particular religious tradition, or of religion in general
2. lack of knowledge sufficient to arrive at a logical conclusion due to religious and/or aesthetic aversions due in part to certain exegeses of religious texts and/or to bias.

The second is dismissed as prejudice; in some cases, it is indeed prejudice, but in some cases, it's due to ignorance (and not always willful ignorance). I believe some further understanding is warranted on both sides of the issue here, but let us examine the first in greater detail, for it is a simple matter.

The first motive is a belief that marriage was ordained by the God of Traditional Theism somehow, and that the first marriage that ever happened was that of an historical Adam and Eve. Here we really should go into the hermeneutics and the various exegeses of the text in order to provide evidence of diverse perspectives, as well as textual criticism, for the edification of the one holding such a view, but that is not the business of government.

We are talking about a bond/union between two people, and whether law or constitution has anything to say about it already, and -- regardless of whether or not there is anything already said -- whether law or constitution has anything to say about it now or in the near future (and that's right, "near" future, because the matter is one which some -- myself included -- believe pertains to the rights of the people already established by legal and constitutional rights, such as those specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

For purposes of entertaining the question of same-sex marriage in the context of constitution and law, we need only point out that marriage is endorsed by multiple religions, even beyond the Abrahamic tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that wedding ceremonies are performed in the context of those multiple religions, that people have also been married in strictly civil ways, without any religious trappings at all, that Atheists and Agnostics have also married, and that the First Amendment restricts the government from meddling in those affairs which are strictly those of religion, even as it restricts religion, both in general and in particular, from becoming favored by government.

As such, neither legislature nor judiciary has authority (or need/cause) to define "marriage" in any way that would meddle in the affairs of religion and the teachings of religion (in general or particular) cannot be enshrined in law.

You are taking the word "marriage" and insisting that we play a different Sprachspiel with it than what the First Amendment permits, for the First Amendment is sitting in the threshold. It is the Gatekeeper, the Threshold Guardian. The First Amendment itself is neither religious nor secular, but both and neither at once, for it is a compact between religion and government that essentially says "you stay out of my business, and I'll stay out of yours."

By insisting that "marriage is not religious," you are taking one perspective as (you will forgive the idiom) "gospel truth" without seeing the other perspective. Both of those Sprachspiele are used in the First Amendment.

Two-edged sword, remember. It can cut both ways, and it does so usually at least tolerably well.

...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.

On the contrary, all I'm talking about is the objective reality. You keep confusing the issue by conflating how people might SUBJECTIVELY feel about it, with the OBJECTIVE reality.

Here's what you say over and over again:
"Marriage is not religious."

Only when pushed on the issue do you soften the statement qualifications.

"Marriage is not inherently or intrinsically religious" is your own subjective view, precisely because of the words you are using as qualification. There is more than one worldview. Remember multiculturalism? You may perceive "objective reality" in a particular manner, but that does not mean that everyone else agrees with you, nor that they are required to do so. For some people, marriage is inherently and intrinsically religious, because that tenet is a facet of their worldview. Those particular words are loaded, because in reading religious literature, those two words are encountered fairly often. A sect whose teachings include the doctrine that "marriage is a sacrament" inculcates the idea of inherent and intrinsic religiosity of marriage. Nevertheless, at least some of the people who hold that worldview are not blind to the fact that they live in the world, wherein competing religions, cultural worldviews, political philosophies, legal philosophies, etc, all exist, and that, if the social contract that is the basis of any multicultural society is to not merely survive, but even succeed, they must acknowledge that other religions, and even other sects of their own religion, have differing views on any number of issues, including marriage, and that non-religious people have differing views on any number of issues, including marriage. From that follows the corollary that says that in that society as a whole, exclusivity and exclusion damage the social contract.

In other words, attempting to use the force of law in order to impose religious extremists' views on the multicultural society is neither better nor worse than attempting to use the force of law in order to impose secularist extremists' views on the multicultural society. BOTH are violations of the First Amendment, which is intended to be a buffer between worldviews, specifically regarding religiosity and secularism. No one sect is established by the law, no one religion is established by the law, and religion in general is not established by the law, but neither is the law to establish the worldview(s) of those who oppose any given sect, any given religion, or religion in general.

With those considerations, and with an eye to avoiding emotively-charged language (which may also damage the social contract by pushing people apart), "universally," "exclusively," actually get the message across without insisting that people with differing worldviews need to be this or that, or more this or less that. Those are the values of particularity, and they don't belong in a multicultural society with a social contract that includes the First Amendment.

DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional in three separate cases by federal judges:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=113703&p=5709587#p5709587

So far, nobody has bothered to go all the way to the Supreme Court with it, but when they do, it will be ruled unconstitutional there as well. If it isn't, then we may need to consider fertilizing the roots of the liberty tree with the blood of tyrants (which is its natural manure).

Can we please drop the DOMA bullshit now?

So you don't know, and you're threatening violence if you don't get what you want? How are you any better than the bigots that passed the law in the first place?

To put things simply for you, the Supreme Court is under no obligation to rule DOMA unconstitutional due to precedence. It would be nice if they would, but I doubt; if it is brought to the floor, if the justices would do the right thing. Especially since challenges against DOMA have failed before.

"Fertilizing the roots of the liberty tree with the blood of tyrants" is a metaphor for revolution. Revolutions are not universally nor exclusively violent. "The Sexual Revolution" is a case in point; it was a revolution of cultural attitudes; society's general perspective became more permissive for a time as a result. The revolution to which I alluded, however, is already occurring; it's not something anyone needs to start, because it has already started. LGBT people are appearing often in the cultural expressions of society: theater (both stage and screen), television programs, music, literature -- all of these are increasingly portraying people as people, neither wholly praiseworthy nor wholly deserving of condemnation; just people, like you and me. This is alleged by some of the opposition to be a "conspiracy," but it is not; a conspiracy would need a planning committee, and be run from top down, whereas this revolution is springing up everywhere, from the artists themselves. "Desertion of the intellectuals" ring a bell? It is a term which refers to one of the harbingers of revolution; in the case of this revolution, the intellectuals have already deserted the untenable position of prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people and causes, and unequal treatment of LGBT persons by the law. The revolution proceeds on schedule, with delays due to the occasional behavior of some overzealous proponents and some overzealous opponents.

[Grave_n_idle]

DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional in three separate cases by federal judges:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=113703&p=5709587#p5709587

So far, nobody has bothered to go all the way to the Supreme Court with it, but when they do, it will be ruled unconstitutional there as well. If it isn't, then we may need to consider fertilizing the roots of the liberty tree with the blood of tyrants (which is its natural manure).

Can we please drop the DOMA bullshit now?

So you don't know, and you're threatening violence if you don't get what you want? How are you any better than the bigots that passed the law in the first place?

To put things simply for you, the Supreme Court is under no obligation to rule DOMA unconstitutional due to precedence. It would be nice if they would, but I doubt; if it is brought to the floor, if the justices would do the right thing. Especially since challenges against DOMA have failed before.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entr ... the-senate

The Supreme Court avenue on DOMA might be irrelevant.

[Octabrinaland]

I see a homosexual couple in public.
My reaction = Meh... it happens.
Everyone else's reaction = *stare at for about five seconds, then walk away like you didn't just gaze into their souls*
People who are homophobic = F***ING FAGS! GO AWAY!

Conclusion - No one is EVER gonna come to any conclusion about it. People are just to different for any conclusion to be drawn.

[Grave_n_idle]

The first motive is a belief that marriage was ordained by the God of Traditional Theism somehow, and that the first marriage that ever happened was that of an historical Adam and Eve.

Those people are wrong. There's no need to pander to their error.

For purposes of entertaining the question of same-sex marriage in the context of constitution and law, we need only point out that marriage is endorsed by multiple religions, even beyond the Abrahamic tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that wedding ceremonies are performed in the context of those multiple religions, that people have also been married in strictly civil ways, without any religious trappings at all, that Atheists and Agnostics have also married, and that the First Amendment restricts the government from meddling in those affairs which are strictly those of religion, even as it restricts religion, both in general and in particular, from becoming favored by government.

We don't need to point out anything about religion. It's irrelevant.

You are taking the word "marriage" and insisting that we play a different Sprachspiel with it than what the First Amendment permits, for the First Amendment is sitting in the threshold. It is the Gatekeeper, the Threshold Guardian.

Not at all. It's no more than a tangent, at best.

The question of marriage equality has nothing to do with religion. The only way in which religion might be involved, is if we were talking about forcing churches to carry out gay marriages against their will.

By insisting that "marriage is not religious," you are taking one perspective as (you will forgive the idiom) "gospel truth" without seeing the other perspective.

I'm not discussing a perspective.

Here's what you say over and over again:
"Marriage is not religious."

Only when pushed on the issue do you soften the statement qualifications.

I've been saying that marriage is not inherently or intrinsically religious for some time. That's not a modification of the argument that marriage is not religious - it's an explanation.

"Marriage is not inherently or intrinsically religious" is your own subjective view,

No, it's objective.

...precisely because of the words you are using as qualification. There is more than one worldview. Remember multiculturalism? You may perceive "objective reality" in a particular manner, but that does not mean that everyone else agrees with you,

Ah, here's the problem. You don't know what 'objective' means.

...nor that they are required to do so. For some people, marriage is inherently and intrinsically religious, because that tenet is a facet of their worldview.

Which is their own subjective baggage. Marriage, itself, is not religious.

[Samuraikoku]

Equivocation occurs when one word has more than one meaning in common parlance, and the word is used by two or more parties in dialogue, with one assuming only one of those meanings, or using the two ambiguously.

"Wedding" is unambiguous; it refers to ritual, ceremony, rite, whatever that (theoretically) inaugural or public acknowledgment that two (or more) consenting adults have chosen to form a bond between themselves, which is customarily dubbed "marriage." It is a social term. It is not necessary for law to recognize a marriage, and hence, need not be considered in connection with marriage except insofar as "marriage" is itself an ambiguous word, which can be used to name the ceremony as well as the state/status/union/bond itself.

GRAVE, repeat, GRAVE, mistake.

We are talking about a bond/union between two people, and whether law or constitution has anything to say about it already, and -- regardless of whether or not there is anything already said -- whether law or constitution has anything to say about it now or in the near future (and that's right, "near" future, because the matter is one which some -- myself included -- believe pertains to the rights of the people already established by legal and constitutional rights, such as those specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

For purposes of entertaining the question of same-sex marriage in the context of constitution and law, we need only point out that marriage is endorsed by multiple religions, even beyond the Abrahamic tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that wedding ceremonies are performed in the context of those multiple religions, that people have also been married in strictly civil ways, without any religious trappings at all, that Atheists and Agnostics have also married, and that the First Amendment restricts the government from meddling in those affairs which are strictly those of religion, even as it restricts religion, both in general and in particular, from becoming favored by government.

As such, neither legislature nor judiciary has authority (or need/cause) to define "marriage" in any way that would meddle in the affairs of religion and the teachings of religion (in general or particular) cannot be enshrined in law.

Having the State define what marriage is and what makes it valid in no way violates the First Amendment.

*snip*

All that you've said shows that you have no idea what the First Amendment means when granting freedom of speech.

[Dusk_Kittens]

...precisely because of the words you are using as qualification. There is more than one worldview. Remember multiculturalism? You may perceive "objective reality" in a particular manner, but that does not mean that everyone else agrees with you,

Ah, here's the problem. You don't know what 'objective' means.

No, the problem is that you are failing to discern that your view of this is subjective and not objective. You don't have a monopoly on truth.

Equivocation occurs when one word has more than one meaning in common parlance, and the word is used by two or more parties in dialogue, with one assuming only one of those meanings, or using the two ambiguously.

"Wedding" is unambiguous; it refers to ritual, ceremony, rite, whatever that (theoretically) inaugural or public acknowledgment that two (or more) consenting adults have chosen to form a bond between themselves, which is customarily dubbed "marriage." It is a social term. It is not necessary for law to recognize a marriage, and hence, need not be considered in connection with marriage except insofar as "marriage" is itself an ambiguous word, which can be used to name the ceremony as well as the state/status/union/bond itself.

GRAVE, repeat, GRAVE, mistake.

Your emphasis of a chosen phrase above is out of context. The antecedent of "it" in that phrase is "wedding ceremony." I was not saying "Marriage does not require legal recognition" or the like (although I will assert that now, as I have in the past). I was saying that the word "wedding" and the concept of "wedding" are not required by law in order for the government to recognize a marriage. Any wedding ceremony itself is superfluous to the status of marriage as far as law is concerned, and that the only reason it is being brought up so much is because the word "marriage" is ambiguous (used to refer to the ceremony and to the status), which leads people to misunderstand what advocates of same-sex marriage are advocating, and is one of the reasons for some of the anxiety over a non-existent threat which those folk feel.

[Samuraikoku]

Your emphasis of a chosen phrase above is out of context. The antecedent of "it" in that phrase is "wedding ceremony." I was not saying "Marriage does not require legal recognition" or the like (although I will assert that now, as I have in the past). (1) I was saying that the word "wedding" and the concept of "wedding" are not required by law in order for the government to recognize a marriage. Any wedding ceremony itself is superfluous to the status of marriage as far as law is concerned, and that the only reason it is being brought up so much is because the word "marriage" is ambiguous (used to refer to the ceremony and to the status), which leads people to misunderstand what advocates of same-sex marriage are advocating, and is one of the reasons for some of the anxiety over a non-existent threat which those folk feel.

(1) - Again, grave mistake. You need the license to get married despite whatever entity holds the ceremony.

[Dusk_Kittens]

We are talking about a bond/union between two people, and whether law or constitution has anything to say about it already, and -- regardless of whether or not there is anything already said -- whether law or constitution has anything to say about it now or in the near future (and that's right, "near" future, because the matter is one which some -- myself included -- believe pertains to the rights of the people already established by legal and constitutional rights, such as those specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

For purposes of entertaining the question of same-sex marriage in the context of constitution and law, we need only point out that marriage is endorsed by multiple religions, even beyond the Abrahamic tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that wedding ceremonies are performed in the context of those multiple religions, that people have also been married in strictly civil ways, without any religious trappings at all, that Atheists and Agnostics have also married, and that the First Amendment restricts the government from meddling in those affairs which are strictly those of religion, even as it restricts religion, both in general and in particular, from becoming favored by government.

As such, neither legislature nor judiciary has authority (or need/cause) to define "marriage" in any way that would meddle in the affairs of religion and the teachings of religion (in general or particular) cannot be enshrined in law.

Having the State define what marriage is and what makes it valid in no way violates the First Amendment.

You're not getting what I'm saying.

I did not deny that the state may define marriage for legal, political, and economic purposes. In fact, I say quite the opposite, all through this thread.

I did, and do, deny that the state can write theology for the various religions. Such an act would be, undeniably, a violation of the First Amendment.

*snip*

All that you've said shows that you have no idea what the First Amendment means when granting freedom of speech.

Please re-read all my posts in the thread; you clearly do not understand what I'm saying.

[Samuraikoku]

You're not getting what I'm saying.

I did not deny that the state may define marriage for legal, political, and economic purposes. In fact, I say quite the opposite, all through this thread.

I did, and do, deny that the state can write theology for the various religions. Such an act would be, undeniably, a violation of the First Amendment.

The State does not write theology for any religion. And legalizing gay marriage would not be doing such thing, if the church does not want to marry them, then it's up to them. But thank goodness, church marriage doesn't count since they don't provide the license, the State does.

Please re-read all my posts in the thread; you clearly do not understand what I'm saying.

Then make it clear because no one here apparently is.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Your emphasis of a chosen phrase above is out of context. The antecedent of "it" in that phrase is "wedding ceremony." I was not saying "Marriage does not require legal recognition" or the like (although I will assert that now, as I have in the past). (1) I was saying that the word "wedding" and the concept of "wedding" are not required by law in order for the government to recognize a marriage. Any wedding ceremony itself is superfluous to the status of marriage as far as law is concerned, and that the only reason it is being brought up so much is because the word "marriage" is ambiguous (used to refer to the ceremony and to the status), which leads people to misunderstand what advocates of same-sex marriage are advocating, and is one of the reasons for some of the anxiety over a non-existent threat which those folk feel.

(1) - Again, grave mistake. You need the license to get married despite whatever entity holds the ceremony.

First of all, this particular assertion I have made has nothing at all to do with the legality of marriage. It is an assertion that marriage need not be either religious nor legal. Marriage is a state of union, and what makes it valid is the commitment, effort, competence, and compatibility of those who are thus united.

Second of all, you're apparently not paying attention to everything around that assertion. The point is not that you can be legally married without state recognition of the marriage (although you can, by virtue of one state refusing to recognize as legal a marriage contracted legally in another state). The point is that a wedding ceremony is not necessary for a marriage to be recognized by the state.

[Samuraikoku]

First of all, this particular assertion I have made has nothing at all to do with the legality of marriage. It is an assertion that marriage need not be either religious nor legal. Marriage is a state of union, and what makes it valid is the commitment, effort, competence, and compatibility of those who are thus united. (1)

Second of all, you're apparently not paying attention to everything around that assertion. The point is not that you can be legally married without state recognition of the marriage (although you can, by virtue of one state refusing to recognize as legal a marriage contracted legally in another state). The point is that a wedding ceremony is not necessary for a marriage to be recognized by the state. (2)

1 - Subjective perspective, does not matter to the eyes of the law.

2 - And how exactly are the spouses supposed to give their consent to the union without the intervention of a public official?

[Dusk_Kittens]

You're not getting what I'm saying.

I did not deny that the state may define marriage for legal, political, and economic purposes. In fact, I say quite the opposite, all through this thread.

I did, and do, deny that the state can write theology for the various religions. Such an act would be, undeniably, a violation of the First Amendment.

The State does not write theology for any religion. And legalizing gay marriage would not be doing such thing, if the church does not want to marry them, then it's up to them. But thank goodness, church marriage doesn't count since they don't provide the license, the State does.

For fuck's sake. Legalizing gay marriage is something all of us currently arguing support! I support it too. I've indicated repeatedly that the government is constitutionally bound to recognize the legality of same-sex marriage.

What I'm saying is that the state cannot define "marriage" as "not religious." That would be writing theology. The state can define "marriage" as "not necessarily nor exclusively religious," because that is a simple statement of fact.

As for making it clear, I don't know how much clearer it can be made.

I have stated repeatedly throughout the thread that I support gay marriage, that gay marriage must be recognized by the government because the Constitution itself requires them to do so.

I have also stated repeatedly that
1. a wedding is a ceremony, a marriage is a status/union/bond
2. a wedding may be religious, while the marriage may be non-religious
3. a wedding may be religious, and the marriage may be religious
4. a wedding may not be religious, while the marriage may be religious
5. a wedding may not be religious, and the marriage may not be religious
6. the word "marriage" is also used to refer to the ceremony, and we need to make clear up front in these discussions that we are talking about marriage as the status/union/bond, and advocating that the status/bond/union be legally recognized for gay marriage
7. we are not saying that any sect, any religion, nor all religions, would or should be required by law to perform religious weddings for gay couples
8. various sects of any given religion may have quite diverse views on marriage
9. various religions may have quite diverse views on marriage
10. various religions have celebrated marriage with religious wedding ceremonies
11. people have had non-sectarian and even secular weddings, without any religious connotations or elements
12. people have had religious marriages (again, I refer to the status/union/bond here)
13. people have had marriages in which religion played absolutely no part.

It is clear from the above statements that:
1. nobody is saying that churches would be required by law to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples
2. no particular sect has a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
3. no particular religion has a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
4. religion in general does not have a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
5. neither do the secular have a monopoly on marriage, nor do they own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor do they hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
6. neither religion nor secularism may impose its views on everyone else in a question of this sort
7. religious questions do not pertain to the legal recognition of equal rights for others, regardless of their religion or lack thereof
8. for purposes of law, politics, and economics, marriage can be defined as a civil union or bond between mutually-consenting legal adults based on a legal contract

(notice how in the definition proposed in the second number 8, I say nothing about marriage being "religious" and I also say nothing about marriage being "not religious," nor do I say anything about how marriage can be defined for purposes of religion or lack thereof for any given marriage, nor for marriage in general)

[Samuraikoku]

I have also stated repeatedly that
1. a wedding is a ceremony, a marriage is a status/union/bond
2. a wedding may be religious, while the marriage may be non-religious
3. a wedding may be religious, and the marriage may be religious
4. a wedding may not be religious, while the marriage may be religious
5. a wedding may not be religious, and the marriage may not be religious
6. the word "marriage" is also used to refer to the ceremony, and we need to make clear up front in these discussions that we are talking about marriage as the status/union/bond, and advocating that the status/bond/union be legally recognized for gay marriage
7. we are not saying that any sect, any religion, nor all religions, would or should be required by law to perform religious weddings for gay couples
8. various sects of any given religion may have quite diverse views on marriage
9. various religions may have quite diverse views on marriage
10. various religions have celebrated marriage with religious wedding ceremonies
11. people have had non-sectarian and even secular weddings, without any religious connotations or elements
12. people have had religious marriages (again, I refer to the status/union/bond here)
13. people have had marriages in which religion played absolutely no part.

It is clear from the above statements that:
1. nobody is saying that churches would be required by law to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples
2. no particular sect has a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
3. no particular religion has a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
4. religion in general does not have a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
5. neither do the secular have a monopoly on marriage, nor do they own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor do they hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
6. neither religion nor secularism may impose its views on everyone else in a question of this sort
7. religious questions do not pertain to the legal recognition of equal rights for others, regardless of their religion or lack thereof
8. for purposes of law, politics, and economics, marriage can be defined as a civil union or bond between mutually-consenting legal adults based on a legal contract

(notice how in the definition proposed in the second number 8, I say nothing about marriage being "religious" and I also say nothing about marriage being "not religious," nor do I say anything about how marriage can be defined for purposes of religion or lack thereof for any given marriage, nor for marriage in general)

1. So far, so good.
2. A wedding MAY be religious, but marriage is and will always be secular.
3. See above.
4. Marriage as a bond isn't religious, it's secular. How many times must I repeat myself?
5. At least you got one right.
6. Very well, you got that right too.
7. So far, so good one more time.
8. None of them matter, since marriage as a bond isn't religious.
9. See above.
10. Which doesn't make them any relevant. Marriage is only determined by validity, and that remains on the parties, and the State.
11. That one you got right.
12. Marriage isn't religious.
13. That one you got right.

From your conclusions:

1. Right.
2. Right.
3. Right.
4. Right.
5. Wrong. The fact that you need a license to get married, and the state gives the union its validity clearly demonstrates it.
6. Wrong. Marriage as a bond is SECULAR, irrelevant if religion does or does not play a part in the union. A subjective view which does not matter to the law.
7. Right.
8. Your definition is secular, as it says "civil union or bond between mutually-consenting legal adults based on a legal contract". Law is secular, and so is legal marriage.

[Dusk_Kittens]

First of all, this particular assertion I have made has nothing at all to do with the legality of marriage. It is an assertion that marriage need not be either religious nor legal. Marriage is a state of union, and what makes it valid is the commitment, effort, competence, and compatibility of those who are thus united. (1)

Second of all, you're apparently not paying attention to everything around that assertion. The point is not that you can be legally married without state recognition of the marriage (although you can, by virtue of one state refusing to recognize as legal a marriage contracted legally in another state). The point is that a wedding ceremony is not necessary for a marriage to be recognized by the state. (2)

1 - Subjective perspective, does not matter to the eyes of the law.

2 - And how exactly are the spouses supposed to give their consent to the union without the intervention of a public official?

1. And the legality of a marriage does not matter in the eyes of those who are involved in a marriage, unless they defer to the state on the question for whatever reason. (The same goes for the religiosity of a marriage; that question is irrelevant unless those involved in the marriage defer to some religious sect on the question for whatever reason.)

2. I did also point out earlier that the act of paying fees, signing the contract in front of a witness, and having the contract legally/publicly recognized can be viewed as a ceremony or not, depending on the perspectives of those involved. There is a ceremonial aspect to it, but not everyone sees such as ritualistic.

[Samuraikoku]

1. And the legality of a marriage does not matter in the eyes of those who are involved in a marriage, unless they defer to the state on the question for whatever reason. (The same goes for the religiosity of a marriage; that question is irrelevant unless those involved in the marriage defer to some religious sect on the question for whatever reason.)

This makes no sense. Why do people get married if legality does not matter?

2. I did also point out earlier that the act of paying fees, signing the contract in front of a witness, and having the contract legally/publicly recognized can be viewed as a ceremony or not, depending on the perspectives of those involved. There is a ceremonial aspect to it, but not everyone sees such as ritualistic.

The law does. Those are requirements needed for validity, superseded by the spouses' freely-given consent obviously, but not any less necessary.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I have also stated repeatedly that
1. a wedding is a ceremony, a marriage is a status/union/bond
2. a wedding may be religious, while the marriage may be non-religious
3. a wedding may be religious, and the marriage may be religious
4. a wedding may not be religious, while the marriage may be religious
5. a wedding may not be religious, and the marriage may not be religious
6. the word "marriage" is also used to refer to the ceremony, and we need to make clear up front in these discussions that we are talking about marriage as the status/union/bond, and advocating that the status/bond/union be legally recognized for gay marriage
7. we are not saying that any sect, any religion, nor all religions, would or should be required by law to perform religious weddings for gay couples
8. various sects of any given religion may have quite diverse views on marriage
9. various religions may have quite diverse views on marriage
10. various religions have celebrated marriage with religious wedding ceremonies
11. people have had non-sectarian and even secular weddings, without any religious connotations or elements
12. people have had religious marriages (again, I refer to the status/union/bond here)
13. people have had marriages in which religion played absolutely no part.

It is clear from the above statements that:
1. nobody is saying that churches would be required by law to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples
2. no particular sect has a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
3. no particular religion has a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
4. religion in general does not have a monopoly on marriage, nor does it own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor does it hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
5. neither do the secular have a monopoly on marriage, nor do they own a trademark on the word "marriage," nor do they hold intellectual property rights on the concept of marriage
6. neither religion nor secularism may impose its views on everyone else in a question of this sort
7. religious questions do not pertain to the legal recognition of equal rights for others, regardless of their religion or lack thereof
8. for purposes of law, politics, and economics, marriage can be defined as a civil union or bond between mutually-consenting legal adults based on a legal contract

(notice how in the definition proposed in the second number 8, I say nothing about marriage being "religious" and I also say nothing about marriage being "not religious," nor do I say anything about how marriage can be defined for purposes of religion or lack thereof for any given marriage, nor for marriage in general)

1. So far, so good.
2. A wedding MAY be religious, but marriage is and will always be secular.
3. See above.
4. Marriage as a bond isn't religious, it's secular. How many times must I repeat myself?
5. At least you got one right.
6. Very well, you got that right too.
7. So far, so good one more time.
8. None of them matter, since marriage as a bond isn't religious.
9. See above.
10. Which doesn't make them any relevant. Marriage is only determined by validity, and that remains on the parties, and the State.
11. That one you got right.
12. Marriage isn't religious.
13. That one you got right.

From your conclusions:

1. Right.
2. Right.
3. Right.
4. Right.
5. Wrong. The fact that you need a license to get married, and the state gives the union its validity clearly demonstrates it.
6. Wrong. Marriage as a bond is SECULAR, irrelevant if religion does or does not play a part in the union. A subjective view which does not matter to the law.
7. Right.
8. Your definition is secular, as it says "civil union or bond between mutually-consenting legal adults based on a legal contract". Law is secular, and so is legal marriage.

You can repeat the unsupported assertion that "marriage is not religious" and "marriage is secular" till you're blue in the face. It still will remain nothing more than Begging the Question, because you have provided no evidence nor argument in favor of the assertion. It will also remain an instance of the fallacy of Generalization, because you are taking one view of marriage and universalizing it. The only necessary refutation of the claim is "there is at least one marriage which is religious," and that is a true statement, hence your assertion is false.

Only in the second 8 do you get it, in the second clause of your second sentence. "Legal marriage" is something to which the question of religiosity is irrelevant.

If you include the qualifier "legal" in "legal marriage" in all instances of your comments about "marriage" do you express the situation accurately.

[Ovisterra]

Ok Samurai and DK, I think you should both calm down.

[Samuraikoku]

You can repeat the unsupported assertion that "marriage is not religious" and "marriage is secular" till you're blue in the face. It still will remain nothing more than Begging the Question, because you have provided no evidence nor argument in favor of the assertion.

I've provided proof (you need a license provided by the State for the marriage to be legally valid independently of any religious ceremony or what the spouses think), you just refuse to acknowledge it.

It will also remain an instance of the fallacy of Generalization, because you are taking one view of marriage and universalizing it. The only necessary refutation of the claim is "there is at least one marriage which is religious," and that is a true statement, hence your assertion is false.

Told you, what the spouses believe about religion playing a part or not in their marriage doesn't matter. The law defines what marriage is for it to be legal and acknowledged. Enough said.

[Samuraikoku]

Ok Samurai and DK, I think you should both calm down.

No personal attacks have been issued by any side, so I think it's quite alright.

[Dusk_Kittens]

You can repeat the unsupported assertion that "marriage is not religious" and "marriage is secular" till you're blue in the face. It still will remain nothing more than Begging the Question, because you have provided no evidence nor argument in favor of the assertion.

I've provided proof (you need a license provided by the State for the marriage to be legally valid independently of any religious ceremony or what the spouses think), you just refuse to acknowledge it.

You need the license for a "legal marriage," not for a marriage. I could quibble with you on the use of the term "legally valid" (I think "legally recognized" is more accurate), but I'll give you that one.

It will also remain an instance of the fallacy of Generalization, because you are taking one view of marriage and universalizing it. The only necessary refutation of the claim is "there is at least one marriage which is religious," and that is a true statement, hence your assertion is false.

Told you, what the spouses believe about religion playing a part or not in their marriage doesn't matter. The law defines what marriage is for it to be legal and acknowledged. Enough said.

I've said it repeatedly. For purposes of "legal marriage" (that is, a marriage recognized by the government and its law), questions of religion or lack thereof are irrelevant. We agree on this.

Where we disagree is in the claim that "marriage" is "not religious" and that "marriage" is "secular."

For "legal marriage" may only consider the secular aspects of marriage; the government is not permitted, however, to dictate that "marriage" (this is a broader term than "legal marriage") is "not religious," and/or "secular."

[The Halbetan Union]

"Fertilizing the roots of the liberty tree with the blood of tyrants" is a metaphor for revolution. Revolutions are not universally nor exclusively violent. "The Sexual Revolution" is a case in point; it was a revolution of cultural attitudes; society's general perspective became more permissive for a time as a result. The revolution to which I alluded, however, is already occurring; it's not something anyone needs to start, because it has already started. LGBT people are appearing often in the cultural expressions of society: theater (both stage and screen), television programs, music, literature -- all of these are increasingly portraying people as people, neither wholly praiseworthy nor wholly deserving of condemnation; just people, like you and me. This is alleged by some of the opposition to be a "conspiracy," but it is not; a conspiracy would need a planning committee, and be run from top down, whereas this revolution is springing up everywhere, from the artists themselves. "Desertion of the intellectuals" ring a bell? It is a term which refers to one of the harbingers of revolution; in the case of this revolution, the intellectuals have already deserted the untenable position of prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people and causes, and unequal treatment of LGBT persons by the law. The revolution proceeds on schedule, with delays due to the occasional behavior of some overzealous proponents and some overzealous opponents.

That's not the kind of revolution Thomas Jefferson was talking about.

[Samuraikoku]

You need the license for a "legal marriage," not for a marriage. I could quibble with you on the use of the term "legally valid" (I think "legally recognized" is more accurate), but I'll give you that one.

Let me give you a basic example: Common law marriage (no license, no ceremony of any kind). Is it a marriage? Since there is no license or any ceremonial aspects indicated by the law, it isn't. We may digress on what the couple think, but legally, it's not a marriage. You can call it a bond, an union, or whatever, but it's not marriage under any circumstances, since "marriage" is defined by the law.

As for the "legally valid"/"legally recognized" acts, I think you're confusing rights, which are "legally recognized", with the exercise of those rights (acts), which have validity or not and thus produce legal effects or not, according to what the law says. Invalid acts (acts that do not follow the law requirements, which doesn't make them necessarily illegal) are deemed "non-existant", and thus can produce no effects. Such is the case with marriage.

Where we disagree is in the claim that "marriage" is "not religious" and that "marriage" is "secular."

For "legal marriage" may only consider the secular aspects of marriage; the government is not permitted, however, to dictate that "marriage" (this is a broader term than "legal marriage") is "not religious," and/or "secular."

But then it would not be marriage, it would be just an union/bond/whatever you may call it. Take the example above.