Interesting fact: The judge who made the decision was appointed by a republican.
I gotta agree with Renegade: Seperate "marriage" and "civil union" already. Make "marriage" a purely clerical concept, and "civil union" a purely legal one, like this:
"Marriage" constitutes a bond in the eyes of your deity of choice, and has no impact on you or your partner's legal rights wahtsoever.
"Civil union" constitutes a bond in the eyes of the state, and gives you and your partner all the associated legal rights and obligations, but doesn't mean squat in the eyes of your deity (unless, of course, your deity says so).
That way, homosexuals can be "civil unified," but if they want to get "married" as well, they'll have to join a religion that condones homosexual marriage. I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense anyway. What good is it that you get "married" if your deity will condemn you to hell for it? Might as well switch to a more agreeable one. Wonder what Manitou would say about this.
Hooray, good ruling and all, but this isn't a discussion thread. It's just AvengerX spelling bad and everyone getting mad at him. If this is a discussion then the presidential debates where they aren't allowed to talk to each other are really debates.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 15 2005, 01:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 15 2005, 01:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why can't he love a trashcan and hump that in the anus and marry that to? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dude, if it has anatomy, that's not a bin you're throwing your rubbish into. _____ I have to side with lolfighter - why join or be united under a religion that doesn't tolerate you? Make civil unions grant equal rights under the law to marriage, and that gets around the problem.
I assume there's legal problems with this approach though, since it seems to make the most sense.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Mar 15 2005, 03:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Mar 15 2005, 03:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting fact: The judge who made the decision was appointed by a republican.
I gotta agree with Renegade: Seperate "marriage" and "civil union" already. Make "marriage" a purely clerical concept, and "civil union" a purely legal one, like this:
"Marriage" constitutes a bond in the eyes of your deity of choice, and has no impact on you or your partner's legal rights wahtsoever.
"Civil union" constitutes a bond in the eyes of the state, and gives you and your partner all the associated legal rights and obligations, but doesn't mean squat in the eyes of your deity (unless, of course, your deity says so).
That way, homosexuals can be "civil unified," but if they want to get "married" as well, they'll have to join a religion that condones homosexual marriage. I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense anyway. What good is it that you get "married" if your deity will condemn you to hell for it? Might as well switch to a more agreeable one. Wonder what Manitou would say about this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This mirrors a discussion I was having with a colleague earlier. Quoted for truth.
Tycho makes a good point too. Perhaps US presidential candidates could simply post snide remarks on a forum, with a poll being opened at the end. It would be as sensible a system as the one in place at the moment.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
The thing is, that kind of system would tick off all the conservatives. Annulling all current marriages and/or converting them to Civil Unions? You'd have any number of... ahem.. people (can't use any of the similes without getting in trouble) jumping up and down and screaming how the nation is being taken over by satanists.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is the loved joining of two individuals. Whether your religion chooses to complain about specifics involving those two individuals does not make a lick of difference.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Mar 15 2005, 12:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Mar 15 2005, 12:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The thing is, that kind of system would tick off all the conservatives. Annulling all current marriages and/or converting them to Civil Unions? You'd have any number of... ahem.. people (can't use any of the similes without getting in trouble) jumping up and down and screaming how the nation is being taken over by satanists.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is the loved joining of two individuals. Whether your religion chooses to complain about specifics involving those two individuals does not make a lick of difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd personally be for it, separation between church and state is a good thing. I believe this is the close to the system used in Australia, and I think it works out fairly well.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Mar 15 2005, 12:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Mar 15 2005, 12:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The thing is, that kind of system would tick off all the conservatives. Annulling all current marriages and/or converting them to Civil Unions? You'd have any number of... ahem.. people (can't use any of the similes without getting in trouble) jumping up and down and screaming how the nation is being taken over by satanists.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is the loved joining of two individuals. Whether your religion chooses to complain about specifics involving those two individuals does not make a lick of difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Could you just draw a line under those who have current-style marriages? So that from the date that the new system is implemented, the old ones are still valid. Eventually, there'll be no-one left under the "old" marriages (due to death or divorce), and it wouldn't be a bother anymore.
I have no idea how feasible that would be, though.
It would be in the religious communities interest, that way. They get to keep the "sanctity of marriage", at least, in theory.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Mar 15 2005, 12:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Mar 15 2005, 12:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The thing is, that kind of system would tick off all the conservatives. Annulling all current marriages and/or converting them to Civil Unions? You'd have any number of... ahem.. people (can't use any of the similes without getting in trouble) jumping up and down and screaming how the nation is being taken over by satanists.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is the loved joining of two individuals. Whether your religion chooses to complain about specifics involving those two individuals does not make a lick of difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Only the religious conservatives would be against it. Libertarians, neocons, corporatists, etc would all be for it.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
It would be a much cleaner cut... religious fundamentalists would not have the 'we were REALLY married' argument to debate any more. It would simply be that they have a civil union by the state, and their particular belief system had condoned their marriage.
Which would open quite a bit; allowing alternative religions to grant marriages.
Then again, I suppose not everyone has read too much Dr. Seuss... I'd recommend for anyone that hasn't; read The Sneetches. Because it's exactly the same.
Just as Snidely says: No need to invalidate the old marriages. Set a date for when the new system takes over. All "normal marriages" from before that day are still valid, both legally as well as clerically. The only one's that would complain are the religious fanatics. I can hear it already: "Only the church should have the right to join man and wife in their sacred union." Luckily, nobody with an ounce of common sense cares for what the fanatics believe.
Unless I've got it wrong, this is exactly the system that Germany uses, and has used for at least as long as I have lived. At least, I know that my parents were married in both a church as well as at the town hall, since their marriage would otherwise not be legally valid. Oh sure, they could have called themselves married, but they would not have been so legally. And I'm not aware of any noteworthy problems with this system. Nor can I think of any. Americans, start a grassroot movement or something. You want this.
NolSinklerOn the ClorfJoin Date: 2004-02-15Member: 26560Members, Constellation
edited March 2005
/edit: oh.
Thread's too long <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So I did a little digging around in the german law, and what I found was <a href='http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/bgb_alt/__1310.html' target='_blank'>BGB § 1310.</a> The relevant part of this law is that certain government employee, a "Standesbeamter," is required to conduct the necessary procedures for entering into marriage. Nothing would of course prevent such a person from being a priest of some religion or other, but he would not be allowed to refuse marriage to anyone based on religious background and such, nor would he be allowed to require a holy oath or similar from the couple to be married. In short, marriage is detached from religion.
This made me think: Surely the church over in the United States does not have the sole right to marriage? What about atheists? What about people of other religions? I'm sure they can get married, and if they can, that means they can be married through the state. This leads me to the conclusion that it is actually the state that is suppressing homosexual marriage, not the church. Where does all this church talk enter the debate, when marriage is in the hands of the state? I'm rather confused here, somebody please enlighten me.
Edit: Sorry that you missed the flamewar, NolSinkler, but it's over now. Please don't bring it up again.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Mar 15 2005, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Mar 15 2005, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then again, I suppose not everyone has read too much Dr. Seuss... I'd recommend for anyone that hasn't; read The Sneetches. Because it's exactly the same. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is that the one where some creatures have stars on their foreheads, but others don't? The star guys set up a caste system and force the others into slavery. The non-star people revolt, and a thousand year struggle for dominance begins.
Lolfighter: looking through a previous "homo. marriage" thread, someone used aetheist marriage as an example of inconistant policy (Skulkbait, IIRC). I'm pretty sure it lies in the hands of the law.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Mar 15 2005, 02:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Mar 15 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I did a little digging around in the german law, and what I found was <a href='http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/bgb_alt/__1310.html' target='_blank'>BGB § 1310.</a> The relevant part of this law is that certain government employee, a "Standesbeamter," is required to conduct the necessary procedures for entering into marriage. Nothing would of course prevent such a person from being a priest of some religion or other, but he would not be allowed to refuse marriage to anyone based on religious background and such, nor would he be allowed to require a holy oath or similar from the couple to be married. In short, marriage is detached from religion.
This made me think: Surely the church over in the United States does not have the sole right to marriage? What about atheists? What about people of other religions? I'm sure they can get married, and if they can, that means they can be married through the state. This leads me to the conclusion that it is actually the state that is suppressing homosexual marriage, not the church. Where does all this church talk enter the debate, when marriage is in the hands of the state? I'm rather confused here, somebody please enlighten me.
Edit: Sorry that you missed the flamewar, NolSinkler, but it's over now. Please don't bring it up again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My agnostic/deist/Protestant mother and my Jewish father got married by a judge.
I strongly believe in the system of civil unions and marriages, to appease both sides. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with homosexuality.
And to a few other things in this thread:
1) I'd get married to a cyborg, as long as there was no metal from the waist down. After all, they're faster, stronger and have IR scanners!
2) I cannot bring myself to believe that only 10% of the country is strictly heterosexual or homosexual... with all the people I know, that just can't be right. Unless everyone is pretending except me. I would never do anything sexually with a man. Ever. I mean, I don't have anything against **** men, but I would hate that.
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+Mar 15 2005, 03:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Mar 15 2005, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I strongly believe in the system of civil unions and marriages, to appease both sides. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with homosexuality.
And to a few other things in this thread:
1) I'd get married to a cyborg, as long as there was no metal from the waist down. After all, they're faster, stronger and have IR scanners!
2) I cannot bring myself to believe that only 10% of the country is strictly heterosexual or homosexual... with all the people I know, that just can't be right. Unless everyone is pretending except me. I would never do anything sexually with a man. Ever. I mean, I don't have anything against **** men, but I would hate that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's the result of social stigma against male homosexuality. I can see how it would be true, but I would think that 50+% of men are 90+% straight.
I'm gonna go with saying that study was false, only because I have no idea how they could ever test something like that without bias. If someone were to enlighten me on that, I wouldn't have any problem.
Though avenger is a little blunt in how he says things, he brings up a valid point about authority - who's authority, what's authority - and how to apply it.
For instance, in CA they have said that it is ok for homosexuals to marry. The authority they appeal to is "popular opinion" - or "rule of law". And good on them - those are very popular sources of authority, and valuable in thier own right.
However, if you extrapolate that out to its logical conclusion, there are lots of sticky situations. We get into realms of relataive morality - honor killings are OK in some societies - as is poligamy, or any other host of things that we Americans might find "immoral".
In the end, the ultimate authority on these issues becomes "self" - what I think is what authority is. In this case, the "self" of these judges is imposing rule of law onto many who disagree with it.
Now, not to be too gross or something, but why isn't bestiality ok to these people? Because it "harms" the animal? What if the animal shows signs of liking it - is it OK then? What makes it wrong? - is it because we are diffent species? (we shouldn't mate girraffs and horses then).
All I am arguing is this - lets assume that animals and humans have a common past. What gives us the right to inflict any law on anyone when a preying mantis can eat it's own mate. Where is the authority? - is it popular opinion? Law (stemming from popular opinion) - is it rogue judges? or do we get our morality from something better than that?
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 15 2005, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 15 2005, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Though avenger is a little blunt in how he says things, he brings up a valid point about authority - who's authority, what's authority - and how to apply it.
For instance, in CA they have said that it is ok for homosexuals to marry. The authority they appeal to is "popular opinion" - or "rule of law". And good on them - those are very popular sources of authority, and valuable in thier own right.
However, if you extrapolate that out to its logical conclusion, there are lots of sticky situations. We get into realms of relataive morality <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, were going to play the "moral reletivism" card again I see...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> - honor killings are OK in some societies - as is poligamy, or any other host of things that we Americans might find "immoral". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see anything wrong with poligamy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the end, the ultimate authority on these issues becomes "self" - what I think is what authority is. In this case, the "self" of these judges is imposing rule of law onto many who disagree with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So? There were many who disagreed when blacks and women were given the right to vote. The rights of the minority outweigh the desires of the majoriy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, not to be too gross or something, but why isn't bestiality ok to these people? Because it "harms" the animal? What if the animal shows signs of liking it - is it OK then? What makes it wrong? - is it because we are diffent species? (we shouldn't mate girraffs and horses then).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This question gets brought up every single time anything having to do with homosexuality is braught up, surely you've read more then a few answers to it, yet you ignore them and keep asking anyway. Its very anoying. Heres my take (which, mind you, I've said before): Bestiality is wrong because an animal cannot concent to sex with a human with a full knowledge of the consequences of doing so. As I've said earlier, if an animal is intellegent enough to understand these consequences and communicate that, then sure, whatever. I may find bestiality disgusting, but if both the animal and human understand what they're doing to eachother and want to do it anyway then I really don't see why its any of my concern.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I am arguing is this - lets assume that animals and humans have a common past. What gives us the right to inflict any law on anyone when a preying mantis can eat it's own mate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um... because we aren't preying mantises (...sp?)? Any given mate probably doesn't want to be eaten, and they have the right not to be. Now if you ask me, then anyone who actually does want to be eaten by there mate should be allowed to be. OF course, society usually deems these people crazy and so they wouldn't legally be able to concent to that sort of thing, but I don't nessesarily think this is the case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where is the authority? - is it popular opinion? Law (stemming from popular opinion) - is it rogue judges?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The authority is in the US constitution. The constitution grants rights, and it is the duty of law to protect those rights. It is the duty of judges to interpret the law.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->or do we get our morality from something better than that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has nothing to do with morality. We've been over that before too. Law and morality are (for the most part) entirely separate entities. For instance, the law allows corporations to stifle innovation, be extremely greedy, ect. all sorts of immoral things, but it isn't illegal.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Actually, it was star-bellied sneetches. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> They were better because they had stars upon thars.
And it wasn't slavery, but the ones without were essentially forced to live in squalor.. out away from the fires and parties, with the junk. Read the story. It's good. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Aw, man...I was so close. Not bad, considering it's been 15 odd years since I read the book. (:
<!--QuoteBegin-Skulkbait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skulkbait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see anything wrong with poligamy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As long as the men/women know about the other lovers, sure. (;
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 15 2005, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 15 2005, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For instance, in CA they have said that it is ok for homosexuals to marry. The authority they appeal to is "popular opinion" - or "rule of law". And good on them - those are very popular sources of authority, and valuable in thier own right. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At issue were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a <b>voter-approved measure</b> in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Popular opinion? Not at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, if you extrapolate that out to its logical conclusion, there are lots of sticky situations. We get into realms of relataive morality - honor killings are OK in some societies - as is poligamy, or any other host of things that we Americans might find "immoral". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The difference is that legalizing **** marriage grants someone a right, whereas legalizing honor killings takes away someone's right to live. Polygamy isn't necessarily immoral, in my opinion. It's outlawed because in most applications, it is exploitative. Women are forced to marry men through peer pressure. Interestingly enough, human societies are predominantly polygamous. Richard Dawkins, in The Ancestor's Tale, cites The Ethnographic Atlas by G.P.Murdock, who lists 849 human societies. 137 (16%) are monogamous, 4 (<1%) are polyandrous, and 708 (83%) are polygamous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the end, the ultimate authority on these issues becomes "self" - what I think is what authority is. In this case, the "self" of these judges is imposing rule of law onto many who disagree with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This isn't true at all. You have it backwards. Laws banning **** marriage "impose rule of law onto many who disagree with it." Laws lifting bans on **** marriage remove the rule of law from many who disagree with it and don't impose on people who don't agree with it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, not to be too gross or something, but why isn't bestiality ok to these people? Because it "harms" the animal? What if the animal shows signs of liking it - is it OK then? What makes it wrong? - is it because we are diffent species? (we shouldn't mate girraffs and horses then).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Animals can't consent because we can't communicate with the animal, regardless of whether we think they're enjoying it or not. 2. Slippery slope. 3. Your point about two different species being forced to mate is a worthwhile point to discuss, but it has no place in this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I am arguing is this - lets assume that animals and humans have a common past. What gives us the right to inflict any law on anyone when a preying mantis can eat it's own mate. Where is the authority? - is it popular opinion? Law (stemming from popular opinion) - is it rogue judges? or do we get our morality from something better than that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is creationist tripe. Just because humans are animals and are descended from other animals doesn't mean that we have to live like animals. The authority comes from the fact that people have certain innate rights that allow us to enjoy our lives. The authority to make laws also comes from the fact that we NEED laws in order to preserve the public order and to increase the quality of life for all humans. We don't necessarily get morality from anything other than ourselves. Morality is relative, to a degree.
I have a question to all who think that *** shouldn't have the right to marry:
<b>How does homosexual marriage reduce the quality of life for you or anyone else?</b>
Good to know. It's good to see that legislation that helps add to Freedom is being put into action.
It doesn't really affect me and it wouldn't really affect me if it were an Anti-Marriage ruling being passed, but this restores some of my faith in this country.
Going back on the dolphin/cyborg/trashcan thing and concenting adults.
Say by chance that an alien spices came to Earth, and had simalar anatomy/genes to a human. Also, asume that those two species could breed and produce offspring, but they were asexual-ish, had a **** and were impregnated via anal-sex. Also asume they had the same lifespan as a human and matured at the same rate.
Now assume that one of them and a human fall in love (male or female. They can go both ways and produce offspring). Would it be bad for those 2 to be married? Or even considered homosexual?
<!--QuoteBegin-Caboose+Mar 15 2005, 07:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Caboose @ Mar 15 2005, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Going back on the dolphin/cyborg/trashcan thing and concenting adults.
Say by chance that an alien spices came to Earth, and had simalar anatomy/genes to a human. Also, asume that those two species could breed and produce offspring, but they were asexual-ish, had a **** and were impregnated via anal-sex. Also asume they had the same lifespan as a human and matured at the same rate.
Now assume that one of them and a human fall in love (male or female. They can go both ways and produce offspring). Would it be bad for those 2 to be married? Or even considered homosexual? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As long as mutual consent is there, it should be allowed. No one is getting harmed, even though it sounds disgusting.
Comments
Also, read the court document linked to in the first post of this thread, it's very interesting.
I gotta agree with Renegade: Seperate "marriage" and "civil union" already. Make "marriage" a purely clerical concept, and "civil union" a purely legal one, like this:
"Marriage" constitutes a bond in the eyes of your deity of choice, and has no impact on you or your partner's legal rights wahtsoever.
"Civil union" constitutes a bond in the eyes of the state, and gives you and your partner all the associated legal rights and obligations, but doesn't mean squat in the eyes of your deity (unless, of course, your deity says so).
That way, homosexuals can be "civil unified," but if they want to get "married" as well, they'll have to join a religion that condones homosexual marriage.
I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense anyway. What good is it that you get "married" if your deity will condemn you to hell for it? Might as well switch to a more agreeable one. Wonder what Manitou would say about this.
Dude, if it has anatomy, that's not a bin you're throwing your rubbish into.
_____
I have to side with lolfighter - why join or be united under a religion that doesn't tolerate you? Make civil unions grant equal rights under the law to marriage, and that gets around the problem.
I assume there's legal problems with this approach though, since it seems to make the most sense.
I gotta agree with Renegade: Seperate "marriage" and "civil union" already. Make "marriage" a purely clerical concept, and "civil union" a purely legal one, like this:
"Marriage" constitutes a bond in the eyes of your deity of choice, and has no impact on you or your partner's legal rights wahtsoever.
"Civil union" constitutes a bond in the eyes of the state, and gives you and your partner all the associated legal rights and obligations, but doesn't mean squat in the eyes of your deity (unless, of course, your deity says so).
That way, homosexuals can be "civil unified," but if they want to get "married" as well, they'll have to join a religion that condones homosexual marriage.
I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense anyway. What good is it that you get "married" if your deity will condemn you to hell for it? Might as well switch to a more agreeable one. Wonder what Manitou would say about this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This mirrors a discussion I was having with a colleague earlier. Quoted for truth.
Tycho makes a good point too. Perhaps US presidential candidates could simply post snide remarks on a forum, with a poll being opened at the end. It would be as sensible a system as the one in place at the moment.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is the loved joining of two individuals. Whether your religion chooses to complain about specifics involving those two individuals does not make a lick of difference.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is the loved joining of two individuals. Whether your religion chooses to complain about specifics involving those two individuals does not make a lick of difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd personally be for it, separation between church and state is a good thing. I believe this is the close to the system used in Australia, and I think it works out fairly well.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is the loved joining of two individuals. Whether your religion chooses to complain about specifics involving those two individuals does not make a lick of difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you just draw a line under those who have current-style marriages? So that from the date that the new system is implemented, the old ones are still valid. Eventually, there'll be no-one left under the "old" marriages (due to death or divorce), and it wouldn't be a bother anymore.
I have no idea how feasible that would be, though.
It would be in the religious communities interest, that way. They get to keep the "sanctity of marriage", at least, in theory.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is the loved joining of two individuals. Whether your religion chooses to complain about specifics involving those two individuals does not make a lick of difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only the religious conservatives would be against it. Libertarians, neocons, corporatists, etc would all be for it.
Which would open quite a bit; allowing alternative religions to grant marriages.
Then again, I suppose not everyone has read too much Dr. Seuss... I'd recommend for anyone that hasn't; read The Sneetches. Because it's exactly the same.
Unless I've got it wrong, this is exactly the system that Germany uses, and has used for at least as long as I have lived. At least, I know that my parents were married in both a church as well as at the town hall, since their marriage would otherwise not be legally valid. Oh sure, they could have called themselves married, but they would not have been so legally.
And I'm not aware of any noteworthy problems with this system. Nor can I think of any. Americans, start a grassroot movement or something. You want this.
Thread's too long <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This made me think: Surely the church over in the United States does not have the sole right to marriage? What about atheists? What about people of other religions? I'm sure they can get married, and if they can, that means they can be married through the state. This leads me to the conclusion that it is actually the state that is suppressing homosexual marriage, not the church. Where does all this church talk enter the debate, when marriage is in the hands of the state? I'm rather confused here, somebody please enlighten me.
Edit: Sorry that you missed the flamewar, NolSinkler, but it's over now. Please don't bring it up again.
Is that the one where some creatures have stars on their foreheads, but others don't? The star guys set up a caste system and force the others into slavery. The non-star people revolt, and a thousand year struggle for dominance begins.
Lolfighter: looking through a previous "homo. marriage" thread, someone used aetheist marriage as an example of inconistant policy (Skulkbait, IIRC). I'm pretty sure it lies in the hands of the law.
This made me think: Surely the church over in the United States does not have the sole right to marriage? What about atheists? What about people of other religions? I'm sure they can get married, and if they can, that means they can be married through the state. This leads me to the conclusion that it is actually the state that is suppressing homosexual marriage, not the church. Where does all this church talk enter the debate, when marriage is in the hands of the state? I'm rather confused here, somebody please enlighten me.
Edit: Sorry that you missed the flamewar, NolSinkler, but it's over now. Please don't bring it up again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My agnostic/deist/Protestant mother and my Jewish father got married by a judge.
And to a few other things in this thread:
1) I'd get married to a cyborg, as long as there was no metal from the waist down. After all, they're faster, stronger and have IR scanners!
2) I cannot bring myself to believe that only 10% of the country is strictly heterosexual or homosexual... with all the people I know, that just can't be right. Unless everyone is pretending except me. I would never do anything sexually with a man. Ever. I mean, I don't have anything against **** men, but I would hate that.
And to a few other things in this thread:
1) I'd get married to a cyborg, as long as there was no metal from the waist down. After all, they're faster, stronger and have IR scanners!
2) I cannot bring myself to believe that only 10% of the country is strictly heterosexual or homosexual... with all the people I know, that just can't be right. Unless everyone is pretending except me. I would never do anything sexually with a man. Ever. I mean, I don't have anything against **** men, but I would hate that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's the result of social stigma against male homosexuality. I can see how it would be true, but I would think that 50+% of men are 90+% straight.
For instance, in CA they have said that it is ok for homosexuals to marry. The authority they appeal to is "popular opinion" - or "rule of law". And good on them - those are very popular sources of authority, and valuable in thier own right.
However, if you extrapolate that out to its logical conclusion, there are lots of sticky situations. We get into realms of relataive morality - honor killings are OK in some societies - as is poligamy, or any other host of things that we Americans might find "immoral".
In the end, the ultimate authority on these issues becomes "self" - what I think is what authority is. In this case, the "self" of these judges is imposing rule of law onto many who disagree with it.
Now, not to be too gross or something, but why isn't bestiality ok to these people? Because it "harms" the animal? What if the animal shows signs of liking it - is it OK then? What makes it wrong? - is it because we are diffent species? (we shouldn't mate girraffs and horses then).
All I am arguing is this - lets assume that animals and humans have a common past. What gives us the right to inflict any law on anyone when a preying mantis can eat it's own mate. Where is the authority? - is it popular opinion? Law (stemming from popular opinion) - is it rogue judges? or do we get our morality from something better than that?
For instance, in CA they have said that it is ok for homosexuals to marry. The authority they appeal to is "popular opinion" - or "rule of law". And good on them - those are very popular sources of authority, and valuable in thier own right.
However, if you extrapolate that out to its logical conclusion, there are lots of sticky situations. We get into realms of relataive morality <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, were going to play the "moral reletivism" card again I see...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> - honor killings are OK in some societies - as is poligamy, or any other host of things that we Americans might find "immoral". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see anything wrong with poligamy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In the end, the ultimate authority on these issues becomes "self" - what I think is what authority is. In this case, the "self" of these judges is imposing rule of law onto many who disagree with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So? There were many who disagreed when blacks and women were given the right to vote. The rights of the minority outweigh the desires of the majoriy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, not to be too gross or something, but why isn't bestiality ok to these people? Because it "harms" the animal? What if the animal shows signs of liking it - is it OK then? What makes it wrong? - is it because we are diffent species? (we shouldn't mate girraffs and horses then).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This question gets brought up every single time anything having to do with homosexuality is braught up, surely you've read more then a few answers to it, yet you ignore them and keep asking anyway. Its very anoying. Heres my take (which, mind you, I've said before): Bestiality is wrong because an animal cannot concent to sex with a human with a full knowledge of the consequences of doing so. As I've said earlier, if an animal is intellegent enough to understand these consequences and communicate that, then sure, whatever. I may find bestiality disgusting, but if both the animal and human understand what they're doing to eachother and want to do it anyway then I really don't see why its any of my concern.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I am arguing is this - lets assume that animals and humans have a common past. What gives us the right to inflict any law on anyone when a preying mantis can eat it's own mate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um... because we aren't preying mantises (...sp?)? Any given mate probably doesn't want to be eaten, and they have the right not to be. Now if you ask me, then anyone who actually does want to be eaten by there mate should be allowed to be. OF course, society usually deems these people crazy and so they wouldn't legally be able to concent to that sort of thing, but I don't nessesarily think this is the case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where is the authority? - is it popular opinion? Law (stemming from popular opinion) - is it rogue judges?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The authority is in the US constitution. The constitution grants rights, and it is the duty of law to protect those rights. It is the duty of judges to interpret the law.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->or do we get our morality from something better than that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has nothing to do with morality. We've been over that before too. Law and morality are (for the most part) entirely separate entities. For instance, the law allows corporations to stifle innovation, be extremely greedy, ect. all sorts of immoral things, but it isn't illegal.
And it wasn't slavery, but the ones without were essentially forced to live in squalor.. out away from the fires and parties, with the junk. Read the story. It's good. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Skulkbait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skulkbait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see anything wrong with poligamy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as the men/women know about the other lovers, sure. (;
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At issue were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a <b>voter-approved measure</b> in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Popular opinion? Not at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, if you extrapolate that out to its logical conclusion, there are lots of sticky situations. We get into realms of relataive morality - honor killings are OK in some societies - as is poligamy, or any other host of things that we Americans might find "immoral". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference is that legalizing **** marriage grants someone a right, whereas legalizing honor killings takes away someone's right to live. Polygamy isn't necessarily immoral, in my opinion. It's outlawed because in most applications, it is exploitative. Women are forced to marry men through peer pressure. Interestingly enough, human societies are predominantly polygamous. Richard Dawkins, in The Ancestor's Tale, cites The Ethnographic Atlas by G.P.Murdock, who lists 849 human societies. 137 (16%) are monogamous, 4 (<1%) are polyandrous, and 708 (83%) are polygamous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the end, the ultimate authority on these issues becomes "self" - what I think is what authority is. In this case, the "self" of these judges is imposing rule of law onto many who disagree with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't true at all. You have it backwards. Laws banning **** marriage "impose rule of law onto many who disagree with it." Laws lifting bans on **** marriage remove the rule of law from many who disagree with it and don't impose on people who don't agree with it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, not to be too gross or something, but why isn't bestiality ok to these people? Because it "harms" the animal? What if the animal shows signs of liking it - is it OK then? What makes it wrong? - is it because we are diffent species? (we shouldn't mate girraffs and horses then).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Animals can't consent because we can't communicate with the animal, regardless of whether we think they're enjoying it or not.
2. Slippery slope.
3. Your point about two different species being forced to mate is a worthwhile point to discuss, but it has no place in this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I am arguing is this - lets assume that animals and humans have a common past. What gives us the right to inflict any law on anyone when a preying mantis can eat it's own mate. Where is the authority? - is it popular opinion? Law (stemming from popular opinion) - is it rogue judges? or do we get our morality from something better than that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is creationist tripe. Just because humans are animals and are descended from other animals doesn't mean that we have to live like animals. The authority comes from the fact that people have certain innate rights that allow us to enjoy our lives. The authority to make laws also comes from the fact that we NEED laws in order to preserve the public order and to increase the quality of life for all humans. We don't necessarily get morality from anything other than ourselves. Morality is relative, to a degree.
I have a question to all who think that *** shouldn't have the right to marry:
<b>How does homosexual marriage reduce the quality of life for you or anyone else?</b>
It doesn't really affect me and it wouldn't really affect me if it were an Anti-Marriage ruling being passed, but this restores some of my faith in this country.
Say by chance that an alien spices came to Earth, and had simalar anatomy/genes to a human. Also, asume that those two species could breed and produce offspring, but they were asexual-ish, had a **** and were impregnated via anal-sex. Also asume they had the same lifespan as a human and matured at the same rate.
Now assume that one of them and a human fall in love (male or female. They can go both ways and produce offspring). Would it be bad for those 2 to be married? Or even considered homosexual?
Say by chance that an alien spices came to Earth, and had simalar anatomy/genes to a human. Also, asume that those two species could breed and produce offspring, but they were asexual-ish, had a **** and were impregnated via anal-sex. Also asume they had the same lifespan as a human and matured at the same rate.
Now assume that one of them and a human fall in love (male or female. They can go both ways and produce offspring). Would it be bad for those 2 to be married? Or even considered homosexual? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as mutual consent is there, it should be allowed. No one is getting harmed, even though it sounds disgusting.