UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

wprager wrote:Spader, do you really want to bring views on abortion into this discussion as well? Yikes.

Big Ev wrote:I heard Reynolds also has a strong relationship with the blacks.

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:Spader, do you really want to bring views on abortion into this discussion as well? Yikes.

You opened that door with the "marriage is for making babies" argument. I'm merely following that argument to its logical conclusion.

Oglethorpe wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Below are the descriptions of marriage and civil unions in Canada. IMO what needs to be done is the removal of "Civil Marriage". Thus all legalities and rights would be gained under the Civil Union, whether you are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. Marriage would then be "Religious Marriage" only thus protecting the sanctity of marriage.

•Marriage — Governments are concerned only with civil marriage. Religious marriages, by themselves, have no legal effect. As a practical matter, the difference between religious and civil marriage is often invisible in Canada. In most provinces, civil authorities licence religious officials to simultaneously conduct the religious and civil marriage.
•Civil union — is different from civil marriage. It is a registration system that recognizes the desire of two individuals to register their relationship in order to trigger legal consequences. There is currently no such system at the federal level in Canada, although four provinces have passed a form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation for provincial laws.

Before you get all liberal minded on me and call me a Social conservative religous zealot, I should come clear. I do not belive in God, nor am I in any way a member of any religion, I only respect religious freedoms. I am 100% against discrimination of all types. I fully support same-sex couples and believe that any and all rights given to opposite-sex couples are given to same-sex couples.

Most people tend to think that everyone who is for the traditional definition of marriage is anti-homosexual, that is just ignorant thinking. Some of us see the debate as a balance of all rights and freedoms.

This leads me to ask, why you feel the need to make homosexual marriage distinctive from all opposite sex marriages by not classifying it the same? Clearly, for whatever reason, you don't feel that homosexual marriage should not be classified in the same manner. You've stated it's not religious, so what is it?

Also, I'll agree with you on religious freedoms. As an atheist, I practice no form of religion (except for the church of Alfie ), but I respect others right to do so. However, once any religious group tries to regulate or affect the way others live, that's when my agreement ends. Same sex marriage is most definitely one of those things.

Let me clear one other thing up. I am in no way liberal, and in no way want to come across as liberal. The institution of marriage began to desolve once it was used by the government as a "Civil marriage". My beliefs remain, marriage is a religious union, whereas civil unions are the legal union. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state.

Ok, so I think I understand your position. You are saying that homosexual marriage should not be classified as a "traditional" marriage because it's a religious union, and since homosexuality isn't allowed in most religions, it should be classified as something different, is that correct?

To which I would say, what does that do for married couples (such as myself and my wife) who are not religious? Should we have to have a separate classification because we don't adhere to a specific religious doctrine? Perhaps, marriage regardless of the participants should be a strict civil union (by law) and religion should be left out entirely.

Leave marriage to mean a religious union. My wife and I were not married in a religious ceremony, therefore if I could rewrite the laws we would be in a Civil Union as opposed to a Marriage since "Civil Marriage" would no longer exist in a legal sense, and all same-sex couples would be treated identically to us, thereby ensuring equal rights to them. I believe this accomplishes the equal rights goal faster and with less objection since it marginalizes any religious groups argument.

spader wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Leave marriage to mean a religious union. My wife and I were not married in a religious ceremony, therefore if I could rewrite the laws we would be in a Civil Union as opposed to a Marriage since "Civil Marriage" would no longer exist in a legal sense, and all same-sex couples would be treated identically to us, thereby ensuring equal rights to them. I believe this accomplishes the equal rights goal faster and with less objection since it marginalizes any religious groups argument.

Why? Why shouldn't you and your wife be considered married? Does it impact those marriages that do represent religious values? Does a happy marriage impact a religious union? If it does, then don't infidelity and divorce have similar impacts? Should we make those illegal as well?

Bass Destruction wrote:
From reading your post it brings up another point it my mind. My brother and my sister-in-law refused to get married in a church, since they are both atheist, instead opting for a small ceremony in the court. Because they refuse to have anything to do with religion, are people saying they aren't 'married'??

wprager wrote:

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:Spader, do you really want to bring views on abortion into this discussion as well? Yikes.

You opened that door with the "marriage is for making babies" argument. I'm merely following that argument to its logical conclusion.

I actually did not say that. I was saying (not in so many words) that nature/life/whatever was about makingbabies (and more).

wprager wrote:First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

wprager wrote:Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

wprager wrote:So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

TheAvatar wrote:

Bass Destruction wrote:
From reading your post it brings up another point it my mind. My brother and my sister-in-law refused to get married in a church, since they are both atheist, instead opting for a small ceremony in the court. Because they refuse to have anything to do with religion, are people saying they aren't 'married'??

No, it just makes them sinners ...

wprager wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

Or we can just return to talking about hockey.

Bass Destruction wrote:
But you know there are some religions that do condone same sex marriage. So if a same sex couple were to get 'married' under that religion, would you then consider it a marriage or not?

TheAvatar wrote:

Bass Destruction wrote:
From reading your post it brings up another point it my mind. My brother and my sister-in-law refused to get married in a church, since they are both atheist, instead opting for a small ceremony in the court. Because they refuse to have anything to do with religion, are people saying they aren't 'married'??

No, it just makes them sinners ...

wprager wrote:

Bass Destruction wrote:
But you know there are some religions that do condone same sex marriage. So if a same sex couple were to get 'married' under that religion, would you then consider it a marriage or not?

Name one!

wprager wrote:

Bass Destruction wrote:
But you know there are some religions that do condone same sex marriage. So if a same sex couple were to get 'married' under that religion, would you then consider it a marriage or not?

Name one!