Your stance on gay marriage

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not designating anything as 'objective reality' that isn't objective.

And how do you determine what is "objective"? .

It's the stuff that isn't altered by perception.

This isn't that complicated, but I'm done arguing the same point over and over.

What you're talking about is a matter of perception, and thus, subjective. What I'm talking about is the stuff that doesn't change no matter how you view it or feel about it - the objective reality. Simple. End of story.

And that's it - I just don't feel like debating that same point again. Forgive me if I opt out.

[Octabrinaland]

Er...okay. But luckily, the way the law works, everyone doesn't need to 'come to a conclusion' about anything. Every individual gets to keep their own feelings and same-sex couples still get to enjoy equal protection under the law.

I'm just making a point.
People will never need a 'conclusion', doesn't mean they'll take it.

[The Baltic Alliance]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

Damn those gays, with their superior fashion sense, their impeccable work ethic, and their incredibly amazing ability to dance to any song and make it look good.

Yeah making the rest of us look bad.

So it really sucks living in Oklahoma....

[Salandriagado]

I'm a Roman Catholic, so...

Is it bad that this immediately made me start humming Every Sperm is Sacred?


And why, exactly, is your religion a justification for impinging on the rights of others?

[Daircoill]

I'm a Roman Catholic, so...

Is it bad that this immediately made me start humming Every Sperm is Sacred?


And why, exactly, is your religion a justification for impinging on the rights of others?

because they've been doing it for centuries. Anything done for long enough eventually gains acceptance in the main stream, even if it is an immoral and unjust notion.
Normally either preceded with or followed by the argument "It's always been this way". That doesn't always mean its the right way.

[Ifreann]

I'm a Roman Catholic, so...

Is it bad that this immediately made me start humming Every Sperm is Sacred?


And why, exactly, is your religion a justification for impinging on the rights of others?

Oh no, I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

I'm a Roman Catholic, so...

So you don't support your religion being legally enforced and do support extending access to legal marriage to same sex couples?

[Samuraikoku]

And how do you determine what is "objective"? .

It's the stuff that isn't altered by perception.

This isn't that complicated, but I'm done arguing the same point over and over.

What you're talking about is a matter of perception, and thus, subjective. What I'm talking about is the stuff that doesn't change no matter how you view it or feel about it - the objective reality. Simple. End of story.

And that's it - I just don't feel like debating that same point again. Forgive me if I opt out.

Not to mention I've asked two questions to her that remained unanswered, she's still about this "marriage isn't objective" thing and she hasn't explained what marriage is in the first place. I'm opting out too.

[Perban]

Let them marry.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Let them marry.

Let Mary marry Marie merrily.

[Fallos Miriai]

Let them marry.

Let Mary marry Marie merrily.

They should verily let the merry Maries merrily merry.

[DaWoad]

Let Mary marry Marie merrily.

They should verily let the merry Maries merrily merry.

owwwwwwwwww

[Telmaur]

I appose, and yes, it's due to my religious beliefs. But it is not hatred as many would think.

[Salandriagado]

I appose, and yes, it's due to my religious beliefs. But it is not hatred as many would think.

Why do your religious beliefs give you the right to impose your beliefs on other people against their will?

[Unhealthy2]

I appose, and yes, it's due to my religious beliefs. But it is not hatred as many would think.

I appose[sic] it too. Good thing I don't oppose it.

[Eliasonia]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

I have no problem with it. If you want to marry someone of the same sex and it makes you both happy fine by me. It doesn't affect my life in any way at all so why should I care?

[Samuraikoku]

I appose, and yes, it's due to my religious beliefs. But it is not hatred as many would think.

I appose[sic] it too. Good thing I don't oppose it.

Neologisms are the shit.

By the way:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appose

[Unhealthy2]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appose

Yeah, I know.

[Furious Grandmothers]

I appose, and yes, it's due to my religious beliefs. But it is not hatred as many would think.

Unlike many of the religious people here, you don't hate, merely oppose. That's a good first step. But don't you agree that to oppose would mean that you are perhaps, in a way, close-minded and being slightly bigoted against gays? Don't mean to offend, sorry if any offense has been taken, but hope that you could be more accepting of the great variety of people that comprise the whole of humanity.

[Samuraikoku]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appose

Yeah, I know.

You do, but apparently he doesn't.

[Dusk_Kittens]

And how do you determine what is "objective"? .

It's the stuff that isn't altered by perception.

This isn't that complicated, but I'm done arguing the same point over and over.

What you're talking about is a matter of perception, and thus, subjective. What I'm talking about is the stuff that doesn't change no matter how you view it or feel about it - the objective reality. Simple. End of story.

And that's it - I just don't feel like debating that same point again. Forgive me if I opt out.

If "objective" is a term meaning and used for "unaltered by perception," then "objective" is an irrelevant consideration, because there is nothing which remains unaltered by perception that can be discussed in any context, because nobody has direct unaltered perception or apprehension of anything that remains unaltered by perception -- unless you're willing to accept unverifiable personal gnosis, and I somehow get the feeling that you are no more prepared to do so than I am.

Not to mention I've asked two questions to her that remained unanswered, she's still about this "marriage isn't objective" thing and she hasn't explained what marriage is in the first place. I'm opting out too.

You assumed I had not read one of your posts, because I did not post any reply. I am not going to answer questions which insult my intelligence, and I will give the benefit of the doubt that your English is far superior to my Spanish but even so may have misinterpreted something I stated by virtue of a language barrier. Your other questions have been addressed by me if the answers were not self-evident or redundant.

I have defined "marriage" a number of times in the course of this thread. Perhaps you should review the past -- say --- 10 pages, even, or let me see if I can find you a direct link or two ...

Oh, while I'm looking, you might find this of interest:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=119982&p=6108227#p6108227

oh, and this, too:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=119982&p=6121785#p6121785

and again:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=119982&p=6151011#p6151011

...

Ah, here's one from a few days back, you did want a definition, right?

Yes, I am pretty secure in regarding the bit which I have reddened in this quote as a definition, wouldn't you agree? I will concede that it is, however, a rudimentary legal definition of what should properly be called "Legal Marriage," and I clarify that later in the thread. Let's see:

Irrelevant.

What you're talking about isn't what marriage is - you're talking about how some people perceive it.

I'm talking objective fact, you're talking subjective opinion.


Only one of these is a valid paradigm for law.

No, not irrelevant, because you're denying that it is religious. It does not have to be; it is not for everyone; it is for some. Now, tolerance is all well and good, but acceptance is so much more just.

Law is also about diplomacy. That is, if a proposed law is written in a manner that is undiplomatic, it may fail to pass, or may be perceived as discriminatory.

We cannot deny that marriage as marriage is a religious thing for some people. For them it is. It is their viewpoint, their worldview perhaps, but that does not make it untrue. Objective fact is that some people do view it as such, and defining it for purposes of law as "not religious" is just as inappropriate as defining it for purposes of law as "religious." It is both and neither. Marriage itself is a subjective concept, in that each individual brings to the institution his/her own baggage, preconceived ideas, expectations, hopes, fears, etc, etc, etc.

When we remove the subjectivity for purposes of legislation, we are left with the view that marriage is a civil contract between two (or more?) people and confers upon those people a legal status; it has also been declared a basic human right by the Supreme Court. There is nothing in that about it being "religious" or "not religious." Religion should not even enter the question. It's not the business of the government to dictate whether X is "religious" or "not religious." That's for religious apologists to determine for their religions, and other people to determine for themselves.

But insofar as X is something done by various religions, and by people who have no religion at all, the question of religiosity for law is, yes, irrelevant -- and yet relevant at the same time, because of the diplomatic considerations. Law must be well-crafted to insure that nobody's rights are violated, not simply to extend recognition of a right to a given group which has heretofore not enjoyed that right. The law should not dictate that marriage is "not religious." It should dictate that it is civil and legal. That is, the wording of the law must omit any reference to the question of it being "religious" or "not religious," because that is not within the authority of Federal, State, or Local governments.

Insofar as it is civil and legal, and recognized by the Supreme Court as a basic human right, however, the Federal Government must ensure that it is extended to all citizens of lawful age and generally sound mind, without consideration of religious opinions or biases, and therefore, it must be extended to same-sex couples.

Am I making myself clear? I am referring to the language used. To say that "marriage is not religious" is incorrect, for it is to some people. To say "my marriage is not religious" is fine, if it's true. Neither the religious nor the non-religious get to have their view enshrined in law on this matter. If the law were to say "marriage is not religious," it would be violating the need for impartial examination of the evidence. Some marriages are religious. Some are not. No law says that they are or have to be religious. No law should say that they are or have to be "not religious," either.

Alright, let's move on to clarifications and modifiers in the definition, to make sure it's as precise and accurate as it need be for legal concerns such as the desire to avoid ambiguity.

Ah, here's one where I discuss both "Marriage" and "Legal Marriage" and how the two are related, and also say that religion should be left out of the legal definition entirely and that religion has no place in the discussion (and if it ain't fucking clear enough after all these posts that a claim that "marriage is not religious" IS IN FACT BRINGING RELIGION INTO IT, then I'm at a loss as to how to convey in any plainer language, that GNI is insisting that his religious views be involved in the definition, and it's no more appropriate for his religious views to be imposed than it is for those of Jerry Falwell to be imposed, by law, on anyone who has a different religious view):

What are you arguing about?

Words and their implications.

I'm simply saying that, in our acceptance of the constitutional imperative to recognize the right of marriage as "not subject to religious opinion or bias" the government (whether it be legislative or judiciary) must not however say "marriage is not a religious institution." Recognize that it need not be, sure, but don't deny that it can be, because for some people, marriage is very much a part of their religion, and those people are not all Christian or even Abrahamic. It can be celebrated as a religious ceremony, but it does not have to be. The ceremony may be elaborate and loaded with religious symbolism and so on, or it can be far more subdued. It need have no more ceremony, religious or otherwise, than a group of consenting adults signing a contract and having it notarized and filed stating that these consenting adults are, for political, legal, and civil matters, to be considered "married."

It can be about love, but it need not be. It can be about sex, but it need not be. It can be about security, but it need not be. It can be religious, but it need not be. It can be about money, but it need not be. Ultimately, even the motivation(s) of the persons entering the contract are irrelevant as long as each party to the contract enter the contract of his/her own free will and accord. It establishes a status of contract between two (or more) people for certain purposes, including government purposes.

What kind of plumbing the people who contract with each other have is irrelevant. Whether they can produce a child by their union is irrelevant. Whether they even have sex or not is irrelevant (and frankly, nobody's damned business but those involved).

They are people who are legally adults and have agreed to enter into a civil/legal union of some sort that they want recognized as marriage for civil/legal reasons. It's nobody's business who they are, what they look like, what they do in their union, whether they both have XY or XX, or one has XX and one has XY, or one has XXY and the other is either XX or XY, or one was subjected to gender selection at birth and the other is entirely "cisgender," or one was intersexed, or one was born with Harry Benjamin syndrome, or one has black hair and the other has auburn. That's between them and them alone. If they want their religion(s) involved, they may involve their religions, and if any religious functionary feels uncomfortable about performing the rites for the individuals, they are free to find someone who will, be that person a religious or civil functionary.

All that is necessary is a contract, parties to the contract, a witness, and a notary public and/or a county clerk's office, so far as I am aware (although these requirements may currently vary by state). So maybe they get a lawyer to draw up their contract (like a prenup agreement and/or any specifics they both agree to in terms of what their union entails and what it restricts, and what it permits but not not require, etc. Then they find either a religious functionary willing to perform a rite satisfactory to them or a civil functionary to simply witness/record the signing of the contract. They they have it notarized and/or filed in the county clerk's office. It is a legal marriage. Who cares whether they all pee standing up or sitting down? Juvenile mentalities, I suppose.

But "religious" or "not religious," let's just leave that alone, because it's not the business of government to decide whether it is religious or not, only to decide whether it is exclusively religious or not. The evidence suggests it is not exclusively religious, indeed that it can be entirely non-religious, but that it can also be entirely religious, or partially religious. I do not believe government should state an opinion on whether it is religious or not religious, but simply note that it is an institution valued by both religious and non-religious, and cannot be restricted to one or the other group on the basis of religion. Since the only vaguely coherent objection to same-sex marriage and so on has to do with religious opinion, the law should merely then point out that religious opinion should not be allowed as an excuse for not recognizing equal rights to the institution.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Oh, and if any further evidence is required of my having defined "Marriage" and "Legal Marriage" and even touched upon "Sacramental" or "Mystical" (or whatever) Marriage,

I think we're talking about the same thing, but putting qualifications on it related to law and/or religion.

We are talking about marriage, which is, for practical purposes, nothing but a civil contract between two (or more) people, but which can also be religious, in part or in whole, and no legal status need be attached to a marriage at all, just as no religious status need be attached at all. If I move in with a guy and we consider ourselves married, with or without any religious or other ceremony to solemnize the union, and with or without any legal paperwork, then we're married, because we say we are, not because a Priest, a Rabbi, a Minister, a ship's Captain, or a JP said we are. Now, that may not confer any legal status on us as a couple who are "legally married," but marriage is more than a piece of paper or a Notary Public's seal or a County Clerk's stamp, just as it is more than a wedding ceremony (religious or otherwise). So let me say what I think marriage is.

Marriage is a union of two or more people in a relationship that is defined by the people involved, not by Church, Synagogue, Temple, Shrine, or County Courthouse -- or anyone else. The people involved in the marriage may opt to have it celebrated with religious ceremony or not. They may also/instead opt to have it legally recognized or not.

I think this is the important point. Marriage is a state of existence in relationship with at least one other person. This is how I'm defining marriage, without reference to law or religion, because, ultimately, neither is necessary for a marriage.

If nobody says "Marriage is religious" or "Marriage is not religious" or "Marriage is secular," then we're all fine here, but if someone says any of those things, doing so is introducing religion to the question. I'm sure you will have seen, if you have bothered any review of my posts as suggested, that I don't want religion brought into the question; it's irrelevant, not because "marriage is not religious" or "marriage is secular," but because religion has its First Amendment Right to teach whatever in fuck's name it wants to teach about "marriage" and the rest of us have our First Amendment Rights to tell them all to go to hell.
But the government does not have the Constitutional authority to dictate religious doctrine to any sect or religion in particular, nor to religion as a whole. It has the power to define legal terms, yes, as legal terms, not as absolute terms.

Now, I have defined "Marriage" and "Legal Marriage" more than a couple of times (subsequent definitions building upon the foregoing and ensuing discussion/thought, which is what the Socratic Dialectic is, the seeking of use and context, meaning, accuracy, and precision in language) in the course of the thread. If you really want to accuse me of "wrongdoing," I'm sure there have been actual mistakes you could find, but accusing me of failing to define the terms, which I myself pointed out as necessary quite early in my involvement in this thread, and then proceeded to do just that, then I'm afraid that the verdict is not merely "not proven," but also "not guilty."

[The Alma Mater]

But the government does not have the Constitutional authority to dictate religious doctrine to any sect or religion in particular, nor to religion as a whole.

This sentence seems to imply you think the government wants to do that. Can you give an example ?
Apologies if you already posted that, I have not read all posts yet.

[Dusk_Kittens]

But the government does not have the Constitutional authority to dictate religious doctrine to any sect or religion in particular, nor to religion as a whole.

This sentence seems to imply you think the government wants to do that. Can you give an example ?
Apologies if you already posted that, I have not read all posts yet.

The statement implies that some people in this thread are insisting that a legal definition of Legal Marriage" needs to include one or both of the following descriptors: "wholly secular" and/or "not religious."

That is government infringement on the territory of religion.

I assert that government need not involve "religious," "not religious," or "secular" in any of the wording, and indeed must not, for the protection of everyone's rights

Pushing "not religious" or "secular" is an effort to impose a secular character on a civil union which dates back further than anyone knows, which has been intimately involved in religion (and vice-versa) at various times and places, and which democratic nation-states have appropriately advocated must be available to all without concern for religious bias -- even if the bias happens to be one of lex talionis (or perhaps more accurately Tu quoque) on the part of those who oppose religion.

And since religious bias should not be involved in the law, then no valid objection to same-sex marriage has yet been put forth, only a lot of bias, whether it be aesthetic, psychological, or religious.

Therefore, the law must conclude that same-sex marriage as a type of Legal Marriage is a Right implied or expressly stated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America. The First Amendment guarantees that religious sects are free to participate in this or not, as their doctrine may tend toward liberty or tradition. It also guarantees that their doctrine is not binding on the law or the people.

Let the fabulous commence.

[Chesnova]

my stance? against it in the revision of the word "marriage". They can be wedded as a "civil union" but no, they cannot be "married".

[Furious Grandmothers]

my stance? against it in the revision of the word "marriage". They can be wedded as a "civil union" but no, they cannot be "married".

Why are you against the revision of the word "marriage"?