God and Gay Marriage

Quote: FrGamble

You don't seem to have an intention of arguing at all. You seem to be playing the role of the sophist. Never in this conversation so far as the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality come up. We are talking about legislation and secular laws and we don't want to get into legislating morality. Your assumption that the morality of homosexuality is an important part of our current discussion is where you are wrong and if you are starting from that assumption how can we move forward?

If you don't like analogies than again all I am saying is that same-sex unions are different than heterosexual marriages. I have heard no one say that they are not or give any reasons why they are exactly the same. If they are intrinsically different than using different words to describe or define them just makes sense. I know you don't like logic, but I don't know how else to put it. The state can grant equal rights to civil unions and marriages like it does for men and women. Sorry for the analogy again.

If you are not assuming morality then there is no reason to be against same sex marriages.

Quote: rxwine

I think my point above is to make the point that the "flesh" in both cases is not what makes the relationship completely significant. You can love a child not of your own flesh just as much.

To call it less is -- well repugnant.

Actually you are right. It is quite heroic and selfless love to care for and raise a child not of your own flesh. You are thinking that different equals worse and that is not what I am saying.

We are all considered as God's adopted children. It is yet another example of His extraordinary love for us.

Quote: FrGamble

You might be best able to answer this question better than anyone.

Ok.

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between a same sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage.

That's my answer.

Otherwise, well, a Christian marriage is quite different from a pagan marriage. Since pagans came first, what right do Christians, and for that matter Jews, Muslim and many others, have to steal that term for their union? Shouldn't we have different words to describe these very different unions?

Quote: FrGamble

If one is able to have the same rights as marriage how is a ban on same-sex marriage cruel, unfair, or unjust?

For one thing because many of these marriage bans also banned any other type of legally recognized same sex union.

But most important, this is about equality before the law. If two people enter a permanent contract identical in every legal and moral aspect to marriage, why should it be called anything else or be treated differently?

I must say I'm rather disappointed at your insistence of a separate but "equal" attitude. Have we not learned that separating, that is to say, discriminating, any group for any reason inevitably leads to massive inequality?

Quote: Mosca

If you are not assuming morality then there is no reason to be against same sex marriages.

I think there is. It makes no sense to call two different things by the same word. It causes mass confusion, consternation, and division. Think for a moment if we considered the civil unions of homosexuals equal in the eyes of the law to marriages, what argument would be left for those who oppose this distinction? Other than robbing the rights of fellow citizens who want to love and commit themselves to who they want I don't know what secular ground someone could stand on in opposing homosexual unions. Let's call things what they are. If it is someone of the opposite sex we call that marriage as we have since...well forever. If it is someone of the same sex we call that a union or some other term. This also avoids the problem that many people seem to bring up about polygamy. Since that is also different than marriage or unions, we call that something else such as polygamy. Calling these two things by different names also protects religious freedom. You might look at it as semantics, but especially in a legal sense words are very important.

Quote: Nareed

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between a same sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage.

That is not true and you are doging the question about is there a fundamental difference between men and women? The answer to this question will lead to clarity as to why the relationship between two men or women and the relationship between a man and a woman are different.

Quote:

Otherwise, well, a Christian marriage is quite different from a pagan marriage. Since pagans came first, what right do Christians, and for that matter Jews, Muslim and many others, have to steal that term for their union? Shouldn't we have different words to describe these very different unions?

What you dress up a marriage to look like or the words you say at the wedding doesn't change the fundamental aspect that is a common thread running through pagan, Christian, Jewish, Egyptian, Muslim, and many other types of marriage - they are between members of the opposite sex.

Quote: Nareed

I must say I'm rather disappointed at your insistence of a separate but "equal" attitude. Have we not learned that separating, that is to say, discriminating, any group for any reason inevitably leads to massive inequality?

I am very sensitive to this charge and think it is misplaced. Separating, especially in language and law, does NOT equal discrimination. In fact often we need to separate and make distinctions within the law for different persons or institutions precisely to protect them from discrimination. What causes problems is pretending things that are different are the same and ignoring their unique characteristics and nature. This makes no one happy.

Quote: FrGamble

That is not true and you are doging the question about is there a fundamental difference between men and women?

The question I posed was "what is the fundamental difference between a same sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage?" You're the one who keeps not answering it. Instead you engage in non-sequiturs, like saying men are different from women. I guess you could have answered cars are different from trucks and submarines are different from boats, all of which is true and just as relevant to the question.

I don't see why you expect me to find your answer for you, or to embrace a position that is not just wrong but also deeply immoral.

Quote:

The answer to this question will lead to clarity as to why the relationship between two men or women and the relationship between a man and a woman are different.

Since you do not intend to answer the question, kindly shut up.

Quote:

What you dress up a marriage to look like or the words you say at the wedding doesn't change the fundamental aspect that is a common thread running through pagan, Christian, Jewish, Egyptian, Muslim, and many other types of marriage - they are between members of the opposite sex.

So the fact that Romans arranged marriages, Egyptians married mostly family members (the royals married siblings), the Greeks treated their wives like property, Arab tribes engaged in multiple partners as did the Israelites and other Semitic peoples, or that in parts of Asia wives were supposed to die on their husbands' funeral pyres, all that strikes you as minor differences to how marriage is regarded today in Western nations?

Speaking of marriage today, some people marry for love, others for money, others for an immigrant's visa, others for convenience, others for companionship, others due to external pressures, others to legitimize a bastard child, others to procreate reliably, among other reasons, or in a combination of reasons. Shouldn't we classify all such unions and name them each for that they are?

I see a much greater difference between a marriage for love and one for money than between a same sex or an opposite sex marriage. And yet no fundamental difference, legally, to designate either of these unions as anything other than what they are: marriage.

Quote: FrGamble

I am very sensitive to this charge and think it is misplaced.

Then I would advise you stop making wrongheaded arguments.

About two years ago a series of immigration measures were stuck in committees over the question of whether to grant the same immigrant rights to same sex couples than to opposite sex ones. The Court's ruling on the Windsor case rendered the point moot. Absent that ruling, though, and demoting same sex marriages to mere "civil unions," would have also rendered the point moot, in the other direction: of course a civil union does not deserve to be treated as a marriage. It's self-evident.

Quote: FrGamble

I think there is. It makes no sense to call two different things by the same word. It causes mass confusion, consternation, and division. Think for a moment if we considered the civil unions of homosexuals equal in the eyes of the law to marriages, what argument would be left for those who oppose this distinction? Other than robbing the rights of fellow citizens who want to love and commit themselves to who they want I don't know what secular ground someone could stand on in opposing homosexual unions. Let's call things what they are. If it is someone of the opposite sex we call that marriage as we have since...well forever. If it is someone of the same sex we call that a union or some other term. This also avoids the problem that many people seem to bring up about polygamy. Since that is also different than marriage or unions, we call that something else such as polygamy. Calling these two things by different names also protects religious freedom. You might look at it as semantics, but especially in a legal sense words are very important.

I think most of us can figure it out, and the rest of us can play along until they get it.

And I still don't understand how same sex marriage impinges on religious freedom. Using the example of bakers of wedding cakes, f someone wants to profit from making wedding cakes, then they cannot discriminate. That is an economic freedom, not a religious one. They can choose to bake cakes, but not wedding cakes, and remain completely free religiously. Or, they can grudgingly bake cakes for gay people and take the money, muttering under their breath about what the world is coming to. Sounds completely free to me. This is a secular, economically free country, and religious people are free to participate to whatever degree thier faith permits. By demanding both freedoms, the religious and the economic, they are taking advantage of and denying others' freedom to participate fully in the economy, either through purchasing the service (in the event of the baker being the only one in town) or restricting choice (comparing the quality of service). You can't have both, because it impinges on others.