When was the last time you saw someone work themelves into a froth over a white woman and a black man, anyway?
A white woman and a black man are, are you sitting down? They are a man and a woman!
what basis does the government have for telling two guy that they can't be married?
You're right, the government doesn't have a right to tell them that they can't go to a "gay" church and get married. However, the government doesn't have to recognize that marriage either since efficient reproduction, the primary reason why the government has a vested interest in marriage, doesn't come into the picture.
The parent's polygamy argument is a good illustration: Your church may treat polygamy as legitimate (cough, mormons, cough), but the government doesn't have to recognize polygamy marriages because they are not the most efficient means to ensure the next generation.
Don't be an asshole. Nobody wants to marry a sheep, or at least they aren't asking for that right to be recognized. They want to be able to marry the single non-relative 18+ person of their choice.
So much for sense of humor. Anyway, I know of groups that want to be marry multiple non-relative 18+ person of their choice. I also know of some that want to marry the single, relative 18+ person of their choice. Then there is a whole other group that wants to marry a single non-relative sub-18 person of their choice. And of course, there are all kinds of wild combinations.
The current state of affairs is that you can marry the single, oposite sex, non-relative 18+ person of your choice. You want to do away with one requirement. Others want to do away with other requirements. That my friend, is the issue at hand: Marriage is currently narrowly defined both by law and by tradition and those characteristics are what differentiate it from other legal contracts.
I could care less if anyone gets married religiously based on other premises or enters into a civil-union-like contract. It's the characteristics of the state-recognized contract that we call "marriage" that I believe shouldn't be subject to negotiation.
Because love is not a legal requirement for marriage. Love is a religious requirement, but not a legal one. From a legal stand point, the state is just concerned with stability to ensure the next generation.
Which means that as far as the state is concerned, love is not a sufficient argument for marriage. It may or may not be a sufficient marriage from a religious stand point, but we are talking about legalizing gay marriage.
But even if the case of people marrying for love alone, if we analyze these marriages further, we may find out that they meet other criteria besides love: Both parties must be single, of an acceptable age, and in the current state of affairs, of different genders.
These requirements are different than the religious requirements that do indeed require love. That is the reason for example, that Mormons can, from a religious standpoint, marry more than one woman, but at the same time that isn't a legally-binding marriage recognized or endorsed by the state.
A straight person can marry the person they love, a gay person cannot.
What if I fall in love with Mrs. Smith down the street? I can't marry her if she is already married. What If I fall in love with a 10-year-old, or my daughter, or my sister, or my mother, or Bob down the street, or two women at once? I can't marry any of them either.
You can make an argument that people should be able to marry anyone they love, but you can't say that there is inequality in the current state of affairs.
Marriage is not just about love. But like I said, if you want to base your argment on love alone, go ahead. Just be honest about it.
Not all heterosexual marriages have a possibility of producing offspring
So what? Not all people are born with the same level of intelligence. Should we prevent people that are born with below average IQ from going to school?
The argument is the reason why the government has a vested interest in marriage: Hetersexual marriage is the most resource-efficient and most effective way of raising the next generation. The government has a vested interest in the next generation. Can you think of a more efficient way to raise the next generation?
Your comment that the argument bears zero weight is pure idiocy. Will you say that the purpose of cars is not transportation because some of them break down or don't work?
Are you suggesting that in addition to awarding gay and lesbian people with special rights that we should also give the government the right to run a full battery of medical exams to all couples before granting them a marriage license?
Let me rephrase my response in the same wacked-out logic you use so that you can understand: Not all anonymous coward comments yield valid arguments. Therefore, your argment bears zero weight.
A very wise post overall, but I must take small issue with this line:
There is only one drawback to this solution, and it's something we've seen just last century. There is no such thing as "separate but equal".
The reason I take issue is that by the nature of these unions they cannot be equal. Heterosexual marriages have a very real possiblity of producing offspring and in fact it can be argued that is primary reason why the government got into the "marriage business" to begin with. Gay marriages by default cannot produce offspring. There is a marked biological and functional difference.
In contrast, the concept of "separate but equal" as applied to racism was not based on any significant biological differences, since color is only skin deep. Further, there is no functional difference between one "race" or another.
The concept of separation in that case was merely an excuse brought about by bigotry. This case, as you've pointed out, the concept of separation is based on some very real arguments.
At best, a case can be made for "separate but equivalent", but the term "separate but equal" does not quite apply in this case. Having said all that, I do by and large agree with the rest of your arguments since they are very well formulated. Gay civil unions are alright in my book.
May I inquire as to the relevance of your question? Clearly non-Christian couples that bind their livest together permanently still meet the christian definition of marriage as expressed by the poster.
That's just intellectual dishonesty... you're phrasing things in dishonest ways to prove a false point.
You can marry pretty much any person you want.
A homesexual person cannot.
Funny that you mention intellectual dishonesty and then you commit it on your very next sentence. No one can just marry pretty much anyone else.
The poster, just like you or I, cannot marry any person he wants. I can't certainly marry my sister, or my mom, or a married woman, or a 10-year old, or two women, or Bob down the street. Can you? Can a gay man? Can a straight man? Can a bisexual man? Can a sheep-loving man?
It's not a "semantics" trick. It's the very defintion of equality. I suggest that you look it up. You seem to be the one that's trying to change the widely accepted meaning of the English language to suit your views.
If you feel like you must make a case for gay marriage, do it with honesty. For example, if you believe that for marriage all you should need is love then you can make an argument that two men can love each other. IMHO it would be the wrong argument to make, but at least it would be an honest argument.
Well, AFAIK the Bible is silent on the matter of extraterrestial life, but some people believe that the words uttered by Jesus in John 10:16 referred to other civilizations:
John 10:16(NIV) :
"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
Of course, the more traditional (and likely) interpretation is that Jesus was referring to different peoples within the ancient world.
The only people who even know about Ward Churchill are the right-wing morons who are trying to paint all liberals as being of the same cloth.
So by your own logic, you a right-wing moron because you know about Churchill.
Plus, I've never claimed to be anything politically. But what does my political leaning has to do with anything anyway? Are you not politically motivated? After all, we are arguing about facts, right? If your arguments are sound and logical, they will be sound and logical even if I'm Bill Clinton himself, Cheyney, Osama, the new pope or the anti-christ. Aren't you supposed to have an open mind and be all for the free exchange of ideas and all that?
...you keep bringing up right-wing whackadoodle conspiracy stories?
OK, then prove me wrong. Which right-wing whackadoodle conspiracy have I brought up? You keep digging youself deeper into a whole lot of wild accusations without any proof. Be specific. You now have to provide proof on:
1) The unproven accusation that conservatives imply that people that disagree with them are "anti-american."
2) The wild and baseless accusation that I claimed that all liberals were just like Ward Churchill.
3) The proof that I brought up any "right-wing whackadoodle" conspiracies. Please be specific as to what conspiracies I brought up, if any.
This is your fourth strike and your fouth attempt at weaseling out of your position and you still haven't used any logic in your arguments. Worse yet, you've still to come up with any coherent arguments at all. I'm sure that if you're right, that should be pretty easy to do.
I've brought Ward Churchill as proof of exactly the opposite: That no one is guilty of his comments except him. My point is that I would never accuse all liberals of being like him. Yet you do accuse all republicans of intolerance based on a single idiot lawyer.
So is this what you do when you are backed against a corner? Launch ad-homenim attacks against me and accuse me of doing what you are doing by claiming I said something that I never did?
When did I say that anyone else but Ward Churchill is responsible for Ward Churchill? And please stay on-point. This is your third attempt to weasel out instead of answering. Do you really have ADD or are you just so clueless that you can't answer?
So now you still haven't answered my question and now you also have to give me proof of when did I say that all liberals were like Churchill.
Another thing. It's pathetic that you have to go back centuries of history before you can even begin to consider an example (and you picked a flawed example, to boot).
What does that say about the assertion that religion is "often" used as an excuse for war? More to the point: What does that say about the assertion that religion in the West is currently used or could be used as an excuse for war? It says that the assertion is an urban legend, a red herring fabricated by those who are intolerant religious bigots to attack something that they hate with irrational fervor.
Unlike you, I've actually followed those google links and read their contents. All of the links are for the same quote of Rumsfeld referring to the prisoner abuse as un-American. Was his characterization incorrect? Was the prisoner abuse "All-American" instead?
But you mentioned he uses it often and you implied that he often uses it innacurately. Now you point me to a single instance where he used it accurately. Doesn't do much to prove your assertion does it?
Nope. Let's not move on. You've already tried to weasel out of it once. Let's see some quotes, and please don't try to pull another "Ratherism" and pull the quotes out of context.
For the record, I hate lawyers from any side, so if this guy said what you say he did, I'm with you that it's terrible. By the same token I've also heard ACLU liberal lawers say that the city of Los Angeles has to have a name change because "Los Angeles" is from Catholic origin. I've also heard liberal professors said that Osama's attack was justified and that all of those people that died in the World Trade center were "Little Eichmans" (i.e. Nazis). But you know what? Unlike you I would never be such a rabid fanatic as to attribute those comments to anyone else but those who said it. BTW, your URL is broken.
So let's focus on the task at hand. Proof, please.
Yup, all of the links are for the same quote, when Rumsfeld referred to the prisoner abuse as un-American. Was his characterization incorrect? Was the prisoner abuse "All-American" instead?
But you mentioned he uses it often, and you implied that he often uses it innacurately. but now you point me to a single instance where he used it accurately. Doesn't do much to prove your assertion does it?
Really? I thought that was motivated by greed (the quest for gold)?
In fact, It's been documented that the church repreatedly stood up against its own in defense of the indians, except that no matter what anyone tried new diseases decimated the new continent.
Trust me, I was educated in Mexico where the conquista is thaught in great detail. If there is anything that you learn is that religion wasn't the cause of all the deaths: It was disease and plain-old greed (much more so disease than greed).
1) Aggression by Serbia against muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia etc.
I think that you got that one wrong. The war was an "ethnic cleansing" war, not a religious war. The Serbian government was secular at the time so you can't pin that one on christians.
All of the other examples point to a religion that has poisonous elements, namely, Islam. Are you saying because Islam is screwed up all other religions are screwed up? I can easily say that in the history of the world far, far more people have died because of wars that the "enlightened secularists" have waged against religion than in wars fueled by religious ideas.
However, it still is used a lot by leaders to gain popular support and win elections; these is especially obvious with Dubya in power, who played the religion card for all it was worth.
And it wasn't used by Kerry at all? During the campaign, I saw him more than once on CNN taking communion, even though he was not a usual church goer before the presidential race. It's been known that Dubya has been particularly religious long before becoming president. In the latest presidential election Kerry tried his damnest to appear religious. But it didn't work because people can spot a poser that believes in precepts that are against his own church (such as abortion) versus someone that may be for real because he's been religious for some time.
Well, if they used the concept, I will accept proof as well. Where is it?
However, saying that "they used the concept" is a lame excuse for putting words in people's mouth that they never said. It's the oldest, dirtiest and most dishonest excuse for defaming the other side.
It's also the old "the documents may be false but the 'intent' of the story is true" pathetic Dan Rather excuse.
I am SO tired of seeing that term. The Right-Wing started it since 9/11. Now, EVERYONE uses it.
Just out of curiosity. Could you provide a link to a documented quote by a right-wing leader using that word first? I don't remember anyone using that term before Michael Moore and the far left wing.
Certainly, most wars are really over power and land, but religion is frequently used as a reason to get the populace to support the war. Religion is frequently used by those in power to bend the will of the people, because it keeps the leaders from needing real reasons to do things.
Could you please give me an example within the last 500 years of any nation in the West justifying war on a religion basis? On the flip side, from the top of my head I can give you dozens of examples of nations using secularism to justifying agression against a religious group. (Germany in WWII, Stalin and its religion persecution, Communist China, North Korea, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge, North Vietnam, and even as early as 1960, the religious persecution and massacre of religious groups by the Mexican government.
Slashdot Mirror
A white woman and a black man are, are you sitting down? They are a man and a woman!
what basis does the government have for telling two guy that they can't be married?
You're right, the government doesn't have a right to tell them that they can't go to a "gay" church and get married. However, the government doesn't have to recognize that marriage either since efficient reproduction, the primary reason why the government has a vested interest in marriage, doesn't come into the picture.
The parent's polygamy argument is a good illustration: Your church may treat polygamy as legitimate (cough, mormons, cough), but the government doesn't have to recognize polygamy marriages because they are not the most efficient means to ensure the next generation.
So much for sense of humor. Anyway, I know of groups that want to be marry multiple non-relative 18+ person of their choice. I also know of some that want to marry the single, relative 18+ person of their choice. Then there is a whole other group that wants to marry a single non-relative sub-18 person of their choice. And of course, there are all kinds of wild combinations.
The current state of affairs is that you can marry the single, oposite sex, non-relative 18+ person of your choice. You want to do away with one requirement. Others want to do away with other requirements. That my friend, is the issue at hand: Marriage is currently narrowly defined both by law and by tradition and those characteristics are what differentiate it from other legal contracts.
I could care less if anyone gets married religiously based on other premises or enters into a civil-union-like contract. It's the characteristics of the state-recognized contract that we call "marriage" that I believe shouldn't be subject to negotiation.
Which means that as far as the state is concerned, love is not a sufficient argument for marriage. It may or may not be a sufficient marriage from a religious stand point, but we are talking about legalizing gay marriage.
But even if the case of people marrying for love alone, if we analyze these marriages further, we may find out that they meet other criteria besides love: Both parties must be single, of an acceptable age, and in the current state of affairs, of different genders.
These requirements are different than the religious requirements that do indeed require love. That is the reason for example, that Mormons can, from a religious standpoint, marry more than one woman, but at the same time that isn't a legally-binding marriage recognized or endorsed by the state.
What if I fall in love with Mrs. Smith down the street? I can't marry her if she is already married. What If I fall in love with a 10-year-old, or my daughter, or my sister, or my mother, or Bob down the street, or two women at once? I can't marry any of them either.
You can make an argument that people should be able to marry anyone they love, but you can't say that there is inequality in the current state of affairs.
Marriage is not just about love. But like I said, if you want to base your argment on love alone, go ahead. Just be honest about it.
So what? Not all people are born with the same level of intelligence. Should we prevent people that are born with below average IQ from going to school?
The argument is the reason why the government has a vested interest in marriage: Hetersexual marriage is the most resource-efficient and most effective way of raising the next generation. The government has a vested interest in the next generation. Can you think of a more efficient way to raise the next generation?
Your comment that the argument bears zero weight is pure idiocy. Will you say that the purpose of cars is not transportation because some of them break down or don't work?
Are you suggesting that in addition to awarding gay and lesbian people with special rights that we should also give the government the right to run a full battery of medical exams to all couples before granting them a marriage license?
Let me rephrase my response in the same wacked-out logic you use so that you can understand: Not all anonymous coward comments yield valid arguments. Therefore, your argment bears zero weight.
There is only one drawback to this solution, and it's something we've seen just last century. There is no such thing as "separate but equal".
The reason I take issue is that by the nature of these unions they cannot be equal. Heterosexual marriages have a very real possiblity of producing offspring and in fact it can be argued that is primary reason why the government got into the "marriage business" to begin with. Gay marriages by default cannot produce offspring. There is a marked biological and functional difference.
In contrast, the concept of "separate but equal" as applied to racism was not based on any significant biological differences, since color is only skin deep. Further, there is no functional difference between one "race" or another.
The concept of separation in that case was merely an excuse brought about by bigotry. This case, as you've pointed out, the concept of separation is based on some very real arguments.
At best, a case can be made for "separate but equivalent", but the term "separate but equal" does not quite apply in this case. Having said all that, I do by and large agree with the rest of your arguments since they are very well formulated. Gay civil unions are alright in my book.
May I inquire as to the relevance of your question? Clearly non-Christian couples that bind their livest together permanently still meet the christian definition of marriage as expressed by the poster.
You can marry pretty much any person you want. A homesexual person cannot.
Funny that you mention intellectual dishonesty and then you commit it on your very next sentence. No one can just marry pretty much anyone else.
The poster, just like you or I, cannot marry any person he wants. I can't certainly marry my sister, or my mom, or a married woman, or a 10-year old, or two women, or Bob down the street. Can you? Can a gay man? Can a straight man? Can a bisexual man? Can a sheep-loving man?
It's not a "semantics" trick. It's the very defintion of equality. I suggest that you look it up. You seem to be the one that's trying to change the widely accepted meaning of the English language to suit your views.
If you feel like you must make a case for gay marriage, do it with honesty. For example, if you believe that for marriage all you should need is love then you can make an argument that two men can love each other. IMHO it would be the wrong argument to make, but at least it would be an honest argument.
It's funny that you talk about lack honesty. In Mexico we have a saying: The donkey is talking about long ears.
But I guess that expecting reason is expecting too much from a typical brainwashed slashdotter.
John 10:16(NIV) :
"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
Of course, the more traditional (and likely) interpretation is that Jesus was referring to different peoples within the ancient world.
So by your own logic, you a right-wing moron because you know about Churchill.
Plus, I've never claimed to be anything politically. But what does my political leaning has to do with anything anyway? Are you not politically motivated? After all, we are arguing about facts, right? If your arguments are sound and logical, they will be sound and logical even if I'm Bill Clinton himself, Cheyney, Osama, the new pope or the anti-christ. Aren't you supposed to have an open mind and be all for the free exchange of ideas and all that?
OK, then prove me wrong. Which right-wing whackadoodle conspiracy have I brought up? You keep digging youself deeper into a whole lot of wild accusations without any proof. Be specific. You now have to provide proof on:
1) The unproven accusation that conservatives imply that people that disagree with them are "anti-american."
2) The wild and baseless accusation that I claimed that all liberals were just like Ward Churchill.
3) The proof that I brought up any "right-wing whackadoodle" conspiracies. Please be specific as to what conspiracies I brought up, if any.
This is your fourth strike and your fouth attempt at weaseling out of your position and you still haven't used any logic in your arguments. Worse yet, you've still to come up with any coherent arguments at all. I'm sure that if you're right, that should be pretty easy to do.
I've brought Ward Churchill as proof of exactly the opposite: That no one is guilty of his comments except him. My point is that I would never accuse all liberals of being like him. Yet you do accuse all republicans of intolerance based on a single idiot lawyer.
So is this what you do when you are backed against a corner? Launch ad-homenim attacks against me and accuse me of doing what you are doing by claiming I said something that I never did?
When did I say that anyone else but Ward Churchill is responsible for Ward Churchill? And please stay on-point. This is your third attempt to weasel out instead of answering. Do you really have ADD or are you just so clueless that you can't answer?
So now you still haven't answered my question and now you also have to give me proof of when did I say that all liberals were like Churchill.
Shhh! What are you doing? Your leftist knee-jerk reaction comment contradicts the GP's leftist knee-jerk raction comment:
Coming soon - non-Evangelical-Republican == Terrorist.
Don't you know that you both are supposed to provide a united leap-of-logic front against the right? --
What does that say about the assertion that religion is "often" used as an excuse for war? More to the point: What does that say about the assertion that religion in the West is currently used or could be used as an excuse for war? It says that the assertion is an urban legend, a red herring fabricated by those who are intolerant religious bigots to attack something that they hate with irrational fervor.
But you mentioned he uses it often and you implied that he often uses it innacurately. Now you point me to a single instance where he used it accurately. Doesn't do much to prove your assertion does it?
For the record, I hate lawyers from any side, so if this guy said what you say he did, I'm with you that it's terrible. By the same token I've also heard ACLU liberal lawers say that the city of Los Angeles has to have a name change because "Los Angeles" is from Catholic origin. I've also heard liberal professors said that Osama's attack was justified and that all of those people that died in the World Trade center were "Little Eichmans" (i.e. Nazis). But you know what? Unlike you I would never be such a rabid fanatic as to attribute those comments to anyone else but those who said it. BTW, your URL is broken.
So let's focus on the task at hand. Proof, please.
But you mentioned he uses it often, and you implied that he often uses it innacurately. but now you point me to a single instance where he used it accurately. Doesn't do much to prove your assertion does it?
In fact, It's been documented that the church repreatedly stood up against its own in defense of the indians, except that no matter what anyone tried new diseases decimated the new continent.
Trust me, I was educated in Mexico where the conquista is thaught in great detail. If there is anything that you learn is that religion wasn't the cause of all the deaths: It was disease and plain-old greed (much more so disease than greed).
I think that you got that one wrong. The war was an "ethnic cleansing" war, not a religious war. The Serbian government was secular at the time so you can't pin that one on christians.
All of the other examples point to a religion that has poisonous elements, namely, Islam. Are you saying because Islam is screwed up all other religions are screwed up? I can easily say that in the history of the world far, far more people have died because of wars that the "enlightened secularists" have waged against religion than in wars fueled by religious ideas.
However, it still is used a lot by leaders to gain popular support and win elections; these is especially obvious with Dubya in power, who played the religion card for all it was worth.
And it wasn't used by Kerry at all? During the campaign, I saw him more than once on CNN taking communion, even though he was not a usual church goer before the presidential race. It's been known that Dubya has been particularly religious long before becoming president. In the latest presidential election Kerry tried his damnest to appear religious. But it didn't work because people can spot a poser that believes in precepts that are against his own church (such as abortion) versus someone that may be for real because he's been religious for some time.
However, saying that "they used the concept" is a lame excuse for putting words in people's mouth that they never said. It's the oldest, dirtiest and most dishonest excuse for defaming the other side.
It's also the old "the documents may be false but the 'intent' of the story is true" pathetic Dan Rather excuse.
Well, can you give me a citation with a Rumsfeld quote? If it's his favorite phrase there must be dozens of quotes.
Umm, good point. I thought that the poster was referring to its recent use from the last election, when it became fashionable to use it again.
Just out of curiosity. Could you provide a link to a documented quote by a right-wing leader using that word first? I don't remember anyone using that term before Michael Moore and the far left wing.
Nope, read Genesis again. It all starts without form. How can you have an earth if you have no form? In other words, it all starts with chaos.
Could you please give me an example within the last 500 years of any nation in the West justifying war on a religion basis? On the flip side, from the top of my head I can give you dozens of examples of nations using secularism to justifying agression against a religious group. (Germany in WWII, Stalin and its religion persecution, Communist China, North Korea, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge, North Vietnam, and even as early as 1960, the religious persecution and massacre of religious groups by the Mexican government.