10 of 29
10
Homosexuality
Posted: 22 August 2012 11:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04
StephenLawrence - 22 August 2012 09:17 PM
George - 22 August 2012 02:50 PM

I think you need help, Stephen. Really.  grin

You know George I dunno how to take this.

But your comment really was quite interesting in the light of the other discussion that Tim is involved in too and I think it was well worth noticing.

Stephen

I think I get the joke. “Tim you could have easily (at least tried to) prove(d) your point.” is not a true statement because I didn’t want to.  Or maybe it is a true statement if I had wanted to. (We should really not cross threads, like this, as it could destroy the underlying fabric of the universe - as demonstrated in the movie “Ghostbusters”.)  smile

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2012 03:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6169
Joined  2006-12-20
TimB - 22 August 2012 11:01 PM
StephenLawrence - 22 August 2012 09:17 PM
George - 22 August 2012 02:50 PM

I think you need help, Stephen. Really.  grin

You know George I dunno how to take this.

But your comment really was quite interesting in the light of the other discussion that Tim is involved in too and I think it was well worth noticing.

Stephen

I think I get the joke. “Tim you could have easily (at least tried to) prove(d) your point.” is not a true statement because I didn’t want to.  Or maybe it is a true statement if I had wanted to. (We should really not cross threads, like this, as it could destroy the underlying fabric of the universe - as demonstrated in the movie “Ghostbusters”.)  smile

No we shouldn’t cross threads and I’m gonna resolve not to do it again. It was just such a priceless demonstration of belief in libertarian free will I couldn’t let that one pass without comment.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2012 06:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Axegrrl - 22 August 2012 05:08 AM

`
Man, all I can say is…...I’m so glad I live in Canada, where this battle was fought and won ages ago and we just have ‘marriage’, period.

All this nonsense of ‘marriage’ vs ‘union’, and all just to mollify a group with a presumptuous sense of entitlement who seem to think that they have some kind of ‘ownership’ of marriage and that what they have to say has some special ‘weight’.

So glad we don’t have to concern ourselves with appeasing religious bigots on this issue.

`

I’m Canadian too. But our laws are also bigoted by favoring particular groups through the Multiculturalist system, especially religious groups. The union of people in matrimony is traditionally religious in itself. The term Marriage itself is directly related to a historical use of an original Latin word referring to Mother Mary with the connotations associated to her unbreakable union to union with God. There’s likely a lot more to it than just this. The point is that the term does hold religious meaning to society.

It would still be wiser, therefore, to use a non-volatile neutral word for the purpose of law-making and policy. The only need for officially defining “marriage” is for legal considerations only. Canada, however, should not be considered a good model for compassion towards the gay community any more than the U. S..

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2012 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

George, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation as a good summary of evidences that show a lot of inconclusive certainty towards biology in being able to assure its prime determination for sexual preference.

It should be obvious, though, that if and when biology plays certain roles in such situations, it usually affects the emotional chemistry in ways that are no different than taking different drugs to encourage certain behaviors. Like taking drugs, if you’re on a ‘high’ through its hormonal chemistry, predicting a behavior is certain to occur, being differently sexually oriented here, is like saying that drinking alcohol causes most vehicular deaths. It may be true in statistical senses that this is the major contributing factor for automobile deaths, but nobody in their right mind would think that being drunk attracts people to an underlying urge to drink and drive!

And so too with sexual preferences: observing the causes of sexual orientation may suggest that certain mental and incidental behaviors point towards biological origins. One of the experiments in the above link mentioned inducing homosexual behavior in mice with chemistry (like taking a drug). But this only enables the mice to behave given the environment that they are in. Like putting a drunk driver behind the wheel, it’s likely that there may be certain common behaviors that could result.

Rather than presuming sexual preference is determined by a biological association, it seems more reasonable to suggest that perhaps people with certain chemical hormonal makeup may enable them to just open up and be less inhibited such that one may more likely adventure into trying new or different sexual behaviors that they discover they enjoy and eventually prefer. Since there is a social status quo to be heterosexual, most people are not sufficiently inhibited to the point that they may go against the norm.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 04:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Scott Mayers - 25 August 2012 06:03 PM

The point is that the term does hold religious meaning to society.

`
No, the point is that the term holds religious meaning to SOME in society. Only some. Atheists get married all the time.  So why on earth should they or anyone else be held to the religious beliefs/values of some other people?

We got it right, here in this country.  Religion doesn’t ‘own’ marriage and civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion.  For those who feel marriage has a “religious meaning” for them, they’re welcome to go through all the hoopla of a religious ceremony.  But they don’t have the right to claim some kind of proprietary claim on a legal institution that isn’t religiously meaningful for a significant portion of the population.

This is pretty simple, imo.

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 04:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Scott Mayers - 25 August 2012 06:03 PM

Canada, however, should not be considered a good model for compassion towards the gay community any more than the U. S..

`
Gay people can get legally, civilly married anywhere in Canada. None of this ‘separate but equal’ nonsense.

So yeah, Canada kinda should be considered a good model for compassion towards the gay community more than the U.S.

Again, pretty simple.

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04
Axegrrl - 26 August 2012 04:28 AM
Scott Mayers - 25 August 2012 06:03 PM

The point is that the term does hold religious meaning to society.

`
No, the point is that the term holds religious meaning to SOME in society. Only some. Atheists get married all the time.  So why on earth should they or anyone else be held to the religious beliefs/values of some other people?...

... Religion doesn’t ‘own’ marriage and civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion.  For those who feel marriage has a “religious meaning” for them, they’re welcome to go through all the hoopla of a religious ceremony.  But they don’t have the right to claim some kind of proprietary claim on a legal institution that isn’t religiously meaningful for a significant portion of the population.

This is pretty simple, imo.

`

I agree.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 01:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

If you marry in Italy, a catholic country if there ever was one…and home of the Vatican, you must have a Civil marriage at the court to be legal, THEN you can go to the Church and let them wave their magic over you. Without the Civil marriage, the magic marriage is not binding…but you Can have the civil marriage alone.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 03:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6099
Joined  2009-02-26
asanta - 26 August 2012 01:54 PM

If you marry in Italy, a catholic country if there ever was one…and home of the Vatican, you must have a Civil marriage at the court to be legal, THEN you can go to the Church and let them wave their magic over you. Without the Civil marriage, the magic marriage is not binding…but you Can have the civil marriage alone.

In a secular society a legal civil union is how it should happen as a legal requirement. How you celebrate this union is your business.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Write4U - 26 August 2012 03:30 PM

In a secular society a legal civil union is how it should happen as a legal requirement. How you celebrate this union is your business.

You get no argument from me! I wish more states would let the bride and groom just perform the ceremony without an officiant. I think that states with significant quaker populations have this option.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2012 12:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
asanta - 26 August 2012 01:54 PM

If you marry in Italy, a catholic country if there ever was one…and home of the Vatican, you must have a Civil marriage at the court to be legal, THEN you can go to the Church and let them wave their magic over you. Without the Civil marriage, the magic marriage is not binding…but you Can have the civil marriage alone.

This is precisely what I think should be the case. The religious aspect is then separated from the government. Axgrrl and TimB, here in Canada we do not have a first amendment clause that separates our government institutions from law-making! Individuals have ‘freedom’ to believe what they want here, but government has freedom to impose laws enabling privileges granted to religious institutions and do so, right from our constitution on up. It may make it easier for present elect governments to enable freedoms such as legal-‘marriage’ for same-sex couples, but “marriage” is still left up to those governments to rule on. In the States, the first Amendment was to assure that no law be made regarding religion (at least, that is what the original writers were assumed to mean). If the American government just left the term, “marriage” out of political law making regarding all legal unions, then there would be no problem: If you want to get ‘married’, a personal vow between one another, find or create a public ceremonial outlet, religious or non-religious, outside the official licensing (the legal contract strictly for purposes of making common laws).

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2012 12:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04
Scott Mayers - 27 August 2012 12:28 AM
asanta - 26 August 2012 01:54 PM

If you marry in Italy, a catholic country if there ever was one…and home of the Vatican, you must have a Civil marriage at the court to be legal, THEN you can go to the Church and let them wave their magic over you. Without the Civil marriage, the magic marriage is not binding…but you Can have the civil marriage alone.

This is precisely what I think should be the case. The religious aspect is then separated from the government. Axgrrl and TimB, here in Canada we do not have a first amendment clause that separates our government institutions from law-making! Individuals have ‘freedom’ to believe what they want here, but government has freedom to impose laws enabling privileges granted to religious institutions and do so, right from our constitution on up. It may make it easier for present elect governments to enable freedoms such as legal-‘marriage’ for same-sex couples, but “marriage” is still left up to those governments to rule on. In the States, the first Amendment was to assure that no law be made regarding religion (at least, that is what the original writers were assumed to mean). If the American government just left the term, “marriage” out of political law making regarding all legal unions, then there would be no problem: If you want to get ‘married’, a personal vow between one another, find or create a public ceremonial outlet, religious or non-religious, outside the official licensing (the legal contract strictly for purposes of making common laws).

The question implied, then, is whether laws that allow (or restrict) homosexual marriage, effect the establishment of religion.

If such laws do effect the establishment of religion, and if there are religions that provide for homosexual marriage, it seems to me, that laws preventing homosexual members of that religion from getting married, would be unconstitutional.  If this line of thinking is correct, then members of the Church of Non-Theistic Humanists would be able to get married irrespective of gender and this would be constitutionally protected.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2012 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6099
Joined  2009-02-26
TimB - 27 August 2012 12:50 AM
Scott Mayers - 27 August 2012 12:28 AM
asanta - 26 August 2012 01:54 PM

If you marry in Italy, a catholic country if there ever was one…and home of the Vatican, you must have a Civil marriage at the court to be legal, THEN you can go to the Church and let them wave their magic over you. Without the Civil marriage, the magic marriage is not binding…but you Can have the civil marriage alone.

This is precisely what I think should be the case. The religious aspect is then separated from the government. Axgrrl and TimB, here in Canada we do not have a first amendment clause that separates our government institutions from law-making! Individuals have ‘freedom’ to believe what they want here, but government has freedom to impose laws enabling privileges granted to religious institutions and do so, right from our constitution on up. It may make it easier for present elect governments to enable freedoms such as legal-‘marriage’ for same-sex couples, but “marriage” is still left up to those governments to rule on. In the States, the first Amendment was to assure that no law be made regarding religion (at least, that is what the original writers were assumed to mean). If the American government just left the term, “marriage” out of political law making regarding all legal unions, then there would be no problem: If you want to get ‘married’, a personal vow between one another, find or create a public ceremonial outlet, religious or non-religious, outside the official licensing (the legal contract strictly for purposes of making common laws).

The question implied, then, is whether laws that allow (or restrict) homosexual marriage, effect the establishment of religion.

If such laws do effect the establishment of religion, and if there are religions that provide for homosexual marriage, it seems to me, that laws preventing homosexual members of that religion from getting married, would be unconstitutional.  If this line of thinking is correct, then members of the Church of Non-Theistic Humanists would be able to get married irrespective of gender and this would be constitutionally protected.

I would say no, they do NOT infringe on the establishment clause. The state does not determine or judge how you wish to enter into a “civil union”, the law only states that if you do NOT obtain a legal certificate of civil union, filed with the registrar, you will not be able to claim the customary social benefits afforded all people living in “legal civil union”.

In this case it is religion that is trying to “impose” certain conditions and “values” to the state of marriage (living in civil union), overriding the only legally required responsibility of the state to record, an appearance by two individuals, a witness, a signed certificate of desire to live in “civil union” by both parties. “And they lived happily ever after”.

Religion only has authority in a Theocracy, not a secular Democracy.

[ Edited: 27 August 2012 01:48 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2012 01:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
TimB - 27 August 2012 12:50 AM

The question implied, then, is whether laws that allow (or restrict) homosexual marriage, effect the establishment of religion.

In the United States, any law regarding “marriage” affects any person defined by it. If “marriage” is deemed to be a religious term, then yes, the laws regarding “marriage” are also establishing a law of religion and would be unconstitutional. In Canada, because we do not have a law restricting an establishment of religion, the term, “marriage” can be still considered a legally religious term (and is) and be used politically to make laws as well. This means that the law allowing same-sex marriage can be applied and at the same time, allow any religion to choose not to officiate gay-marriage ceremonies, if their belief does not allow it. This is a law that establishes religious rights. So,...

TimB - 27 August 2012 12:50 AM

If such laws do effect the establishment of religion, and if there are religions that provide for homosexual marriage, it seems to me, that laws preventing homosexual members of that religion from getting married, would be unconstitutional.  If this line of thinking is correct, then members of the Church of Non-Theistic Humanists would be able to get married irrespective of gender and this would be constitutionally protected.

In Canada, yes, you can have a “Church of Non-Theistic Humanists” with members who can get married and be protected by law.

The American system with it’s first Amendment is very commendable, however. So the best thing to do would be to use a legally neutral term like, union, to make laws and give licenses and leave the term, “marriage”, to their personal discretion, be it religious or not.

For instance, for legal purposes, it is popularly wise in this era to make laws to encourage parents to stick together to avoid or reduce child poverty. To do this, a tax incentive can be created to legal unions that could help to foster this goal. It’s legal function is to serve the purpose of the political goal, not to favor or disfavor anybody’s particular meaning of the term, “marriage” so why is it necessary to cling on to the word? You are still free to show off your pictures of your ceremony that you call a “marriage” and who would care?

[ Edited: 27 August 2012 01:59 AM by Scott Mayers ]
 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2012 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04

In the U.S. currently it appears to be left to the states to determine the definition of marriage and civil unions and who can or can’t have either, or who will be recognized as having either. Most people who vote on this issue in most states, side against gay marriage.  The diifferent laws in different states, must complicate things tremendously for those whom this issue effects.

The good news is that people who personally know someone who is gay tend to be in favor of gay marriage.  So as more people become open and matter of fact about their homosexuality, opinions and eventually laws will continue to change in favor of gay marriage.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 29
10