Is banning gay's rights to marry wrong?

[winoman]

I know you are a socialist, but first of all, let's get rid of the notion of equality. There is no such thing aside from an idea. In nature and in society there is a hierarchy of intellects, characters, and capacities. There is an inequality between mens intellects, characters and abilities.

completley irrelevant unless of course you are proposing that one must pass a literacy test before being allowed to marry or such. Or perhaps only aryan marriages should be sactioned...and certainly not - inter-racial marraiges - of course there was a time that these were not recognized either - and neither were the rights for Blacks considereed as EQUAL to those of whites - but I would assume that you would acknowledge that there are no legal differences concerning basic rights and privledges or such - between blacks and whites in this country - no? Thus it seems to me that - in the eyes of the law - they are equal - speed limit is applied equally, everyone is taxed the same ($ may not be the same - but racial, gender and I even imagine sexual orientation has no bearing on ones tax rate...etc etc). And this of course is the meaning of equal we are refering to - not some textbook scientific measurement of identicalness that has no bearing at all whatsover on this argument nor does it have any bearing on the issue of womens rights. (In regards to the legal rights as citizens of our nation) - Are they not - or should not they be - as well - seen/treated as equal (to any man etc) - in all respects? no?

On to the notion of rights. The Constitution is flawed. Do not use it as a measuring stick of what is a right or not.

Well I fear it is only you who expects perfection. Something that will never and for the most part can never be achieved in human affairs. So as long as you use perfection as a standard for measuring human interactions and such - nothing you say - no view that you possess - has any bearing on reality. So please go back to reading Mein Kampf and dream of your perfect world.

I think you, and most of the people responding to this thread have not mentioned this alternative point of view.

Why not one wonders - could it be that it is utterly irrelevant?

Why should marriage be a part of the State's monopoly? In other words, why should marriage be a matter that the State deals with? Why should the State concern itself with marriage at all?

You are confusing two different things. There is the religious ceremony and then there is the legal contract. And the latter is all that matters here (your particualr religion is free to hold any ceremony they so wish - no one is stopping you/them - but in regards to a ceremony - such as marraige - which completley chages the way two people are viewd (legally) within our society - well thats a different matter - we need to rely on something that is recognized by the state [or states - as it were]- and through such has legal bearing). The fact of the matter is that marriage is a legal institution that infers certain fundemantal rights and obligations within our economic and legal system. It is integraly tied into the entire concept of law and property in this nation. Once married - in many respects you become a single entity in the eys of the law - property, taxes, debts, etc etc Your proposal -essentailly lets do away with the government - do away with the legal structure that we all live under (well so much for your corporations and all the rules they abide by and eveything else basically in our society - because this is what it is all based on...)- well - so you think you want a revolution - eh? OK #9....#9....#9....#9....#9....

It is a religous and sacred institution, which, through the monopoly of the State has acquired a secular meaning. The idea of marriage comes from religion, not the secular State. As such marriage should not be a part of the State.

wrong - see above. Again - you are free to throw a party and howl at the moon all you wish - but we are talking about our socio-economic system of which the (legal) institution of marriage is at its very core.

This way we avoid the idea of one's rights being encroached.

Yes you are correct here - if there is no marriage - in the legal sense - giving certain economic and legal RIGHTS - this would avoid the issue of rights being encroached - but as this is not (ever) going to happen - yours is basically a non-argument. It is just another oppurtunity for you to grandstand your disfunctional political views.

If a private church wants to marry a homosexual that is their business. I am just as much opposed to the lifestyle which homosexuality espouses, and I am the first to speak against their advertising their lifestyle. This issue is not one of such nature and marriage should be where it rightfully belongs - with the churches, not the State.

sorry Charlie - wrong (non)issue/(non)argument...

[winoman]

Here is a comprimise position

The Sanctity of Marriage in the Modern Age
From Andrew Somers,

Defining the Roll of the Government in the Marriage Contract

Freedom. A word that America was built on. But as a word, it's meaning has a wide range of interpretations. Interpretations that are today dividing America.
One of the most divisive, as we saw in the last election, relates to the "sanctity" of marriage in our culture. To understand this perception, we need to look at the history of marriage as an institution.

If prostitution is the oldest profession, it's likely that marriage is the oldest contract. Indeed in it's origins, marriage had little to do with love or religion. The oldest history of marriage dates to 2350 B.C., and it original intention was to "bind" a woman to a man. This essentially made the woman the "property" of the man, to "guarantee" that the man's heirs where biologically his.

As the Catholic church became a dominant political and religious force in Europe, they eventually controlled the institution by mandating the blessings of a priest for a marriage to be legal

Marriage as a "sacrament" was widely accepted in the church by the 8th century, however the "sacramental" nature of marriage was not written into Canon law until 1563.
The biggest changes in marriage emerged in the last 100 years or so. Granting women the right to vote was the first step in granting women equal rights. More recently, "no-fault" divorce laws, and the legal concept of marital rape, elevated the status of women in the marriage relationship to equality with the man. As opposed to becoming "the property" of the man, marriage is now the legal union of a man and a woman, with a number of legal privileges.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Loving vs. Virginia dismissed the Anti-Miscegenation laws in the 16 states that had them, further defining the freedom to marry whomever one wishes.

Historically, gay marriage is also not a new concept. Roman Emperor Nero twice married men. A few hundred years later the Roman outlawed homosexual marriages in 342 AD. Nevertheless, there are instances of gay marriage thereafter, such as the 13th century Greek Orthodox Church's “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union".

A Sensible Solution to America's Division Over Same-Sex Marriage
Marriage as a holy, religious ceremony, belongs in the church, to be defined as appropriate by each individual religious body according to the dictates of their beliefs.

The government should have no role in the "sanctity" of these religious bondings.

However, in our modern society, there are logistical and legal ramifications relating to couples, particularly those that are raising families. To mitigate the "legality" (not "sanctity") of a couple/family, here the government can issue/oversee the legal aspects of the "contract."

For the purposes of discussion, one could call the "legal" portion the "civil union", keeping the term "marriage" to apply only to any particular religion, or religious ceremony.

With the understanding that legal means be available to all person in a non discriminatory manner, then any couple of any composition could have access to the legal civil union contract for forming a legal pair bond.

Ultimately "marriage" as a religious institution should free itself from the bounds of governmental interference, and exist only as the religious sanctity observed by the couple and their god.

Our modern society - a society of laws - dictates that each and every person be afford the equal protection and treatment of the laws. The "legal contract" nature of a union of two persons as a legal entity must therefore be afforded to all, regardless of their choice of spouse.

[winoman]

Even consevative ministers agree (from a Charismatic Church site)

Is it time for "legal marriage" and "religious marriage" to get a divorce?

When we ministers perform a wedding we not only serve as an agent of God -- we are a representative of the state. Though we all believe we are doing something in the sight of God, what we actually say is something like, "By the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I pronounce…" Marriages are not only a moral matter--they are a legal transaction involving matters of inheritance, property and other economic issues more related to the courtroom than the church altar. Nowhere is this more obvious than the process of dissolving this legal bond--divorces are the domain of the courtroom, and are more about money than morals.

Of course, the Christian church was so slow to get into the wedding business. The early church had nothing to do with performing weddings--these were family matters not the church's business. But gradually the church was drawn into these legal arrangements between two families--especially as the Roman notion of marriage prevailed in the church. It became increasingly important to establish legal childhood to enable rightful inheritance. The local priest, being able to read and write, was then gradually pulled into recording marriage contracts as legal agreements.

At first these contracts occurred at the door of the church where many other legal transactions of the day occurred. Eventually, at the end of the ceremony the couple followed the priest indoors to the altar for Holy Communion. But it took 1000 years for Christians to move the entire marriage ceremony inside the church. In the process ministers and priests became agents of government in performing legal bonds which only government courts would be able to dissolve, leaving many ministers--especially in America--uncomfortably presiding over moral bonding with great legal consequences.

Few ministers give it a second thought. Until recently, that is. An increasing number of pastors and churches--especially charismatic churches--are performing "moral marriages," a marriage that is purely a church transaction "in the sight of God" but has no legal ramifications. In these churches, during a regular worship service, a couple publicly recites their vows for a lifetime together but they never get a secular marriage license. These "moral marriages" provide a moral canopy over the relationship but do not alter the legal relationship between the individuals--including rights of survivorship, inheritance, etc. Pastors who perform these unlicensed marriages defend their actions by saying the church's interest is primarily moral not legal or financial. Their opponents charge these ministers are performing nothing more than a sanctioned shack-up.

So, might we see a new category of marriage ceremony emerge? One where a couple is joined "in the sight of God and these witnesses" yet they are not legally joined in the sight of the courts and law? A "moral marriage" that is not necessarily a "legal marriage?" What should we be thinking about before we go down this road? So what do you think?

[Anonymouse]

completley irrelevant unless of course you are proposing that one must pass a literacy test before being allowed to marry or such. Or perhaps only aryan marriages should be sactioned...and certainly not - inter-racial marraiges - of course there was a time that these were not recognized either - and neither were the rights for Blacks considereed as EQUAL to those of whites - but I would assume that you would acknowledge that there are no legal differences concerning basic rights and privledges or such - between blacks and whites in this country - no? Thus it seems to me that - in the eyes of the law - they are equal - speed limit is applied equally, everyone is taxed the same ($ may not be the same - but racial, gender and I even imagine sexual orientation has no bearing on ones tax rate...etc etc). And this of course is the meaning of equal we are refering to - not some textbook scientific measurement of identicalness that has no bearing at all whatsover on this argument nor does it have any bearing on the issue of womens rights. (In regards to the legal rights as citizens of our nation) - Are they not - or should not they be - as well - seen/treated as equal (to any man etc) - in all respects? no?

With this paragraph you begin a contradiction that has become so evident in your posting habits. First you attack my point as being irrelevant. Then you go on to take issue with a very much off-topic subject, and elaborate on it. Whereas I sprinkled icing on the cake, you simply poured whip cream.

Second of all, you citing flawed examples of equality ignores the fact that in theory it is supposed to be equal. In practice it is not, especially in the eyes of the law, as the law cannot be applied equally. Who applies the law to those who enforce it? Who watches the watchers? They are above the law. Further examples such as O.J. Simpson demonstrate that the law is not applied equally and is in fact subject to the race card. The speed limit is not applied equally. It certainly doesn't apply to the police. Like everything else in human endeavors application is based on bias, discretion and discrimination of the individual, to the situation. Sometimes one cop will stop someone going 85, other times they will pull them over. There is no absolute measuring stick of application other than what you have made up to sooth your construct of the way reality ought to be as opposed to how it is. Therefore the notion of it being equal is again absurd. Your last question is silly. It is what the Communists and Marxists asked. Shouldn't everyone be treated equally? That was the premise of the flawed idea of Marxism - egalitarianism. There is no such thing in reality. You again ignored that there is an inequality of intellects, characters and capacities and because of these differences in hierarchy of nature, there can never be equal application of anything.

Well I fear it is only you who expects perfection. Something that will never and for the most part can never be achieved in human affairs. So as long as you use perfection as a standard for measuring human interactions and such - nothing you say - no view that you possess - has any bearing on reality. So please go back to reading Mein Kampf and dream of your perfect world.

I have never argued for perfection. That is untrue. I dare say you cannot support your claim. On the contrary, to argue for equality and egalitarianism would be to argue for perfection, and idealism. What I state has everything to do with reality, which is why it so infuriates and bothers you that you felt the need to deconstruct my post to its entire minuteness, simply because it threatens the matrix of your mind. For the record, I have already read Mein Kampf. What is your point?

Why not one wonders - could it be that it is utterly irrelevant?

The person who complains of irrelevance himself makes an irrelevant statement. Oh the funny.

You are confusing two different things. There is the religious ceremony and then there is the legal contract. And the latter is all that matters here (your particualr religion is free to hold any ceremony they so wish - no one is stopping you/them - but in regards to a ceremony - such as marraige - which completley chages the way two people are viewd (legally) within our society - well thats a different matter - we need to rely on something that is recognized by the state [or states - as it were]- and through such has legal bearing). The fact of the matter is that marriage is a legal institution that infers certain fundemantal rights and obligations within our economic and legal system. It is integraly tied into the entire concept of law and property in this nation. Once married - in many respects you become a single entity in the eys of the law - property, taxes, debts, etc etc Your proposal -essentailly lets do away with the government - do away with the legal structure that we all live under (well so much for your corporations and all the rules they abide by and eveything else basically in our society - because this is what it is all based on...)- well - so you think you want a revolution - eh? OK #9....#9....#9....#9....#9....

You apparently misunderstood and missed the entire point which is that marriage is not and should not be a legal issue of the State. It belongs to the Church.

Marriage should not be a matter of legality, like prostitution. It is tied into tax laws because the State monopolized marriage, just like jurisprudence, and education. For most of its history it was not a State institution, and in fact, its inception has a religous nature, not a legal one. You are restating obvious things that do not matter. The point is it should not be a matter of the State. There are many Churches that want to marry homosexuals but they cannot because of goverment. It seems your love for government actually ignores the history of marriage, that it is a legal institution.

I was under the impression that homosexuals want to get married because they love each other, etc., not because they are after tax breaks. If that is the reason for homosexuals to get married, that is laughable and only highlights the weakness of your argument. The whole issue is confused. Part of it is because the leftist minority is disingenuously using this as a tactic to increase gay rights, to affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, etc. And partly it's because people are not clear on the terms of dispute.

For many it comes down to mere semantics. There are folks such as myself who are opposed to gay marriage. I have no problem with the state enforcing agreements between people and calling it a civil union. If two people want to form a union whereby they pool their assets and liabilities, have power of attorney over each other in critical medical or death situations, why shouldn't such agreements be enforced? So the dispute is only calling it "marriage".

wrong - see above. Again - you are free to throw a party and howl at the moon all you wish - but we are talking about our socio-economic system of which the (legal) institution of marriage is at its very core.

Precisely why it should be privatized, and left to Churches, not the State.

Yes you are correct here - if there is no marriage - in the legal sense - giving certain economic and legal RIGHTS - this would avoid the issue of rights being encroached - but as this is not (ever) going to happen - yours is basically a non-argument. It is just another oppurtunity for you to grandstand your disfunctional political views.

This misses the point. Alot of things that were not probable have now been possible, from the dissolution of the Soviet Union and destruction of the Berlin Wall, the triumph of liberty, to the internet revolution - all systems moved toward disorder, as the second law of thermodynamics informs us. Society is one of complexity, and eventually the State systems crack, as history informs us. The fact that it can or cannot happen now, doesn't mean in anyway it cannot happen ever, the issue is probability versus possibility. The fact that you agree with me, and then state my views are disfunctional, because it is from these views that I state the opinion, means that you are disfunctional for agreeing with me.

sorry Charlie - wrong (non)issue/(non)argument...

sorry Charlie - wrong (non)issue/(non)argument...

[winoman]

I am happy to let my argumetns stand - as is. Nothing you have said changes the validity of my post in any way.

[Anonymouse]

I am happy to let my argumetns stand - as is. Nothing you have said changes the validity of my post in any way.

Of course it does. Your argument is that homosexuals should marry because they want tax breaks, reap the benefits of the State. And I effectively demolished it by saying that, if that is what they want, to reap benefits from the State's trough, then they can get a civil union in which they get all those benefits, and not call it marriage. And now you will feel the need to respond to vindicate yourself.

[winoman]

Of course it does. Your argument is that homosexuals should marry because they want tax breaks, reap the benefits of the State. And I effectively demolished it by saying that, if that is what they want, to reap benefits from the State's trough, then they can get a civil union in which they get all those benefits, and not call it marriage. And now you will feel the need to respond to vindicate yourself.

Who are you or I to judge the love between two people.

Believe what you want - regardless of facts - this is what you typically do in all cases. BTW - did you read my other 2 posts (both form Christian perspectives BTW) - marriage was a civil ceremony long before the church got involved....talk about having the core of ones argument smashed to pieces...er but ahem - again - I'm hapy to let what has already been posted stand...besides I was warned not to keep beating up on you as your crying is upsetting folks I guess...

[Anonymouse]

Who are you or I to judge the love between two people.

Believe what you want - regardless of facts - this is what you typically do in all cases. BTW - did you read my other 2 posts (both form Christian perspectives BTW) - marriage was a civil ceremony long before the church got involved....talk about having the core of ones argument smashed to pieces...er but ahem - again - I'm hapy to let what has already been posted stand...besides I was warned not to keep beating up on you as your crying is upsetting folks I guess...

Oh, so now your argument reverts back to love? Such confusion and flip flopping explains the illogistics of your argument, and the entire argument for same sex marriage at that.

[winoman]

...you really need to get out more...

[Anonymouse]

...you really need to get out more...

Personal attacks admit defeat. Thus I win.