No, I do not consider it a 'marriage', but like I said, it is purely opinion. As for the Jewish, Muslim etc. , those are a religious union.

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

Fair enough...i respect your right to view marriage through the lens of your faith. I guess where I have issues is that since marriage is currently recognized by the gov't and certain rights are ascribed because of that recognition, certain sectors of our population aren't able to garner those rights because of their sexual orientation. I just think that it’s wrong when the rights of the masses are being defined thru the religious lens of the few...but that has been thoroughly hashed in another thread...

ok, another question- I was married in a Christian church, but neither my wife or I are Christians. The church was simply a location that would appease family members that are religious. Sure we said the words, but our marriage is based on our word and commitment to each other and not to some higher being. Am I married in your mind? Not trying to flame, just trying to understand...

To me it boils down to two things. One, is being gay a trait or a choice? Two, does "gay marriage" provide the same level of societal benefit that nuclear marriage does.

If being gay is a choice, as I believe, then I would say that gays have voluntarily given away their "rights" to gaining benefits from marriage. Also, I would argue that gay "marriage" does not, or at a minimum has not been proven to, provide the same societal benefit as traditional marriage. Therefore, if government tax policy is set up to encourage behaviors that benefit society, then gay "marriage" should not get the same preferential tax treatment as traditional marriage.

Then again, one could make the argument that government tax policy should be entirely neutral and not encourage or discourage any type of personal behavior. I would support that. Problem is, that would unravel a lot of the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" precepts that so many Democrats hold sacred.

To me, this is just another example, similar to abortion and AFDC, where people seek to have no negative consequence as a result of engaging in anti-social behaviors.

Nice post.

I'm guessing for the reasons you decribed in your post, the shift has gone from calling them "marriages" to "unions".

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

"I do not recognize civilly-performed "marriages" as marriage."

I'm jumping into this discussion rather late. Under your definition my wife and I are not married. Since both of us are atheists we had a ceremony performed outside by a JP. We wrote our own marriage vows leaving out any mention of god. Whether or not you think we are married, we are considered married legally.

I just don't get this whole debate about gay marriage. The gay population is a tiny minority of the overall population. I highly doubt that every gay person even wants to be married. Why is there such a huge problem with allowing a miniscule number of people to be married in order to achieve certain benefits that are only allowed through marriage?

The bigger problem as far as I see it is abortion. Since the advent of Roe more than 44 million people have had their civil rights denied. My understanding is that is this country all men (people) are CREATED equal. The exact wording does not say BORN equal, but CREATED equal. Then, after being created, we are supposed to have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, in my opinion, over 44 million people were CREATED and then denied the right to life. A huge civil rights violation.

Why is this important to an atheist? Because I believe there is no god or everlasting life, etc., I believe that all we get is the life we have. Therefore as humans, we should cherish human life, not seek to destroy it.

As for the election. We essentially had a choice between bad and worse. You can form your own opinion about who won. I don't recall reading anywhere in the constitution about having our country ruled by only two parties, but yet that's what we have. I really think the vast number of people don't feel they are properly represented by either party and certainly there is a huge number of independents who essentially have no representation. Spending huge amounts of money apparently is what gets a person elected. Since the lesser candidates do not have the same financial ability as the major parties, their voices are nullified. Until elections are made fair for all candidates we will continue to get the same kind of bad or worse choice we had this time.

Don

"Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear."

Well, there is no harm in making sure I understood you correctly, is there?

"You don't have to agree with my opinions...that is why they are called such."

I totally agree with that statement. I was not passing any judgement on your opinion. Maybe it is just semantics. Replace my "marriage" with "civil union" and define "marriage" as a religious union and you and I both agree, provided the "civilly unioned" people have the same rights as the "married" ones.

Do you think that religiously married people and civilly married ones have different rights in the society? If they differ, would you care to explain how?

as a Roman Catholic, believe that marriage is a sacrament, just like Holy Communion and is given by God, not man and to be between a man and a woman for the purposes designed by God. Therefore, I believe that the government has no business being in the marriage business.

As much as I hate to call out a fellow Papist, you do realize that isn't what the Church teaches about marriage, right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Whether or not you think we are married, we are considered married legally."

I agree--under the laws of your state you are and therefore, under the equal protection clause, by the laws of every other state. My point is that "God's Law," whether you believe in it or not (up to you) and the state laws (or man's law) are not in agreement on the issue.

"...in my opinion, over 44 million people were CREATED and then denied the right to life. A huge civil rights violation. "

I couldn't agree with you more on that whole topic.

Not sure I understand. PM me on that and we'll discuss.

Rights? No. I don't see anything in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the rest of the Amendments that currently speaks to marriage.

Priveleges? Possibly. Depends on what you mean by "the society." If you are speaking from the view that society = government and government = society then probably no. If you are asking the question from the view that society includes other instituions including churches/religion, then probably yes.

Using your definitions, I was thinking more in terms of government. I surely understand that from a Church/Religion point of view, there is a big difference between a civil union and a religious one.

How can otherwise intelligent people believe such a nonsensical premise. Did you choose to be straight? Could you choose to be gay right now?

---

_______________________________________________

jhc...i hear ya...that's the wall we kept running into the previous discussion about gay marriage...makes no sense to me, but at this point, a lot of people believe it and aren't changing their minds...

"I just think that it’s wrong when the rights of the masses are being defined thru the religious lens of the few...but that has been thoroughly hashed in another thread... "

Could you please point me to that thread? I seem to have missed it and would like to check it out!

"Whether or not you think we are married, we are considered married legally."

"I agree--under the laws of your state you are and therefore, under the equal protection clause, by the laws of every other state. My point is that "God's Law," whether you believe in it or not (up to you) and the state laws (or man's law) are not in agreement on the issue."

I'm assuming your argument about being married "under God" vs. being legally married has something to do with the gay marriage debate. Maybe I'm missing something, but don't gays simply want to be married legally? Or are they wanting their marriages to take place in churches? I haven't really followed the whole "gay marriage crisis" because I think it's much ado about nothing.

Don

Since the advent of Roe more than 44 million people have had their civil rights denied. My understanding is that is this country all men (people) are CREATED equal. The exact wording does not say BORN equal, but CREATED equal. Then, after being created, we are supposed to have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, in my opinion, over 44 million people were CREATED and then denied the right to life. A huge civil rights violation.

We couldn't be futher apart on the religion issue, but we couldn't stand closer together on the abortion issue. People are funny like that, huh? Awesome paragraph. I appreciate it.

44 million. Damn.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I don't think anyone can reasonably expect a religion that teaches that homosexuality is a sin to give religious sanction to a gay marriage.

The issue is legal marriage sanctioned by the government.

---

_______________________________________________

What is the definition of "gay?" Doesn't that mean someone who, given a choice of having sexual relations with one of two genders, opts to have sex with someone of the same gender? Has someone proven that all people are hard-wired one way or another? If so, I must have missed it.

Glad to know you think I'm otherwise intelligent, though.

Glad to know you think I'm otherwise intelligent, though.

Any time.What is the definition of "gay?" Doesn't that mean someone who, given a choice of having sexual relations with one of two genders, opts to have sex with someone of the same gender? Has someone proven that all people are hard-wired one way or another? If so, I must have missed it.

Define gay? How about "having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex" I'm guessing that you did not choose to have a sexual attraction to women, right? You might have a choice about who you sleep with, but not about who you're attracted to. Can you reasonably argue otherwise?

---

_______________________________________________

I just see it as a learned or trained response, not a genetic hard code as some people suggest. Things that are learned or trained can be unlearned or untrained, if one so chooses. There are many things I found unappealing in my life that I now enjoy, and therre are things I once found appealing that I no longer do. My opinion--so let's just agree to disagree.

"The issue is legal marriage sanctioned by the government."

Why is this such a major issue? It's only likely to affect a miniscule number of people. I just don't see where it will have any impact on anyone beside the people getting married. There is a gay couple living across the street from my house. Whether they are married or not makes no difference to me. If all they are seeking is a legal document that will give them certain benefits only available through having this document, where is the harm in that?

Don

I just see it as a learned or trained response, not a genetic hard code as some people suggest.

That's fine Brian. I actually view that theory as slight different than the "voluntary choice" theory and think it's much more reasonable. I'd just add that a lot of people think there probably is a genetic component (twin studies and such), even if it's not 100% "hard wired" as you put it. I say that because I'm personally very doubtful it can be "untrained". (I also don't know why it should be untrained, even if it could - Leviticus aside I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about any sexual orientation, but that might be a different topic)

---

_______________________________________________

While I can't say I represent a state that wasn't anything other than deep blue, I think you hit on an interesting point.

You're basically suggesting that traditional values represents an opposition to what most people would today, at least in polite society, deem social progress. I think its interesting that embedded within the word "conservative" is the notion that the preservation of the status quo, despite the forces in a changing world, is a worthy goal. And I think it's more than a semantic issue. If you parse it, you end up considering that such a preservation is in contravention to the idea that maybe everything isn't all right, and that there are in fact some institutions desperately in need of fixing.

But the problem is that to do so you need to go up against a lot of incumbent forces with a lot to lose. So they can bring up this sort of homey word - "conservative" as an intellectual ideal, sidestepping the fact that some things actually need fixing.

As you point out, its because people opposed this conservatism that blacks and women can vote and can eat at lunch counters with whites, or that they can own property, or a whole variety of other changes that we now generally revere. The problem at the time is that if I'm a white male landowner, why the hell would I want to dilute my power, right or wrong, justice or no justice?

I guess my point is, as an extension to your point, that right and wrong and intellectual and moral value have very little currency when it comes to social change and the shifting of power. It just comes down to what you can make happen.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"