ah but Archonix that split between official state marriage and the religious marriage would further religious institutions (and in this case i mean Christian churches) from being an authority with quasi legal powers to being more like social clubs. The church is desperate to hold onto what small claws they have hooked into our legal, cultural and mental framework and they wont give them up easily.

Who are the bigots here? Keeping traditional marriage is a sincere belief of a lot of people which has nothing to do with hate or discrimination. You can't just demand that everyone's lifestyles be accepted by everyone else. You can't mandate moral relativism.

"You can't just demand that everyone's lifestyles be accepted by everyone else"- yes you can, if you dont accept other peoples lifestyle choices then you are a bigot and a prick

@Archonix - hey, are you going to join the GFDT games? Are you getting any of the e-mails? Please, check the "GFDT begins... " thread below and your spam/junk mail folder :)

Apologies for the off-topic :)

Tetra, I actually don't think they would disagree.

You can get stoned for a choice, you know, look at heretics, or even early Christians. They all died because of a choice. With each passing day I become less convinced that homosexuality is inborn. My brother is gay, and to my face he told me it took him a while to 'decide.'


Also, you split an infinitive here, "Million of people who would like, very much, to not be told its wrong."

Not to be told, rather. Lol.
Just poking fun, of course.

Anyway. As to evolution. I do not advocate that creationism should be see as an equal or anything like that. What I do advocate, though, is a more critical examination of what is becoming scientific gospel. Evolution really isn't, I promise, all it's cracked up to be. There's something to it, but a lot of key stuff is way off. Just like, in my opinion, most of our science is mostly way off. Just because we haven't found anything contrary (a moot point, since we have, but I'll continue), doesn't meant its correct. The limited nature of our faculties of observation, and unbiased conclusion-drawing, means that most of all the scientific theories, laws, rules, corollaries, etc are most likely wrong. They work on a day to day basis yes but I contend that they do not represent the unblemished truth. In that sense I can not fault Bush for saying, "I am not so sure about evolution."

I don't think it's ever been a human right to get married to whoever one chooses. What about underage people? Or siblings? I know I'm falling into the old trap of the slippery slope argument but I'm starting to believe that it shouldn't be so readily shot down by us. This truly is a redefinition of an old institution and should be given lots of thought. (I for one support the redefinition since I have no great love for the existence of the institution in the first place, but that is a different matter...) The fact is that gay people and straight people have the exact same rights: they have the right to marry someone of a different sex. I think it's dishonest to say that gays have "fewer" rights than straight people.

"if you dont accept other peoples lifestyle choices then you are a bigot and a prick"

So even well thought out, but differing opinions are unacceptable? What happened to plurality? What happened to tolerance?

theres a difference between not agreeing with other peoples opinions and not accepting their lifestyle choices

No there isn't. As long as there's no violence people can think whatever they want. That's what freedom is.

ok i dont agree with people being christians but i accept their choice and dont want to go and ban churchs etc, whereas you may agree that being gay is fine but you wont agree to gay marriage which is not accepting their lifestyle choices.

Those examples aren't comparable. To ban churches is to radically restructure the whole of society and really an unspeakable act of tyranny. Not extending marriage to gays has nothing to do with accepting their lifestyle choice, it's about protecting protecting the original meaning of the institution.

By your logic, the only way I can not be intolerant is to totally give in to the demand for gay marriage and any dissent is unacceptable. That's not compatible with anything like democracy.

@Invictus

I have no problem with you not thinking that being gay is "right" or simply saying that your religion doesn't think that homosexual acts are moral. That's fine. I'm even fine with your religion refusing to marry or recognize marriages between same sex couples, or any other couples they don't want to marry (I beleive I recall you saying you're catholic? I have absolutely no problem with the catholic church refusing to recognize for example marriages between people who have previously been divorced). But I can't see how or why the state should care one wit what the sex or gender of the people entering into a civil marriage are.

I would really like to hear your argument as to why marriages between consenting adults of the same gender should not be recognized by the government. What legal reasons are there why the government should be able to decide that two citizens, of the age of majority, with full legal standing, should be able to enter into a legal arrangement recognized by the government, but that two others shouldn't, simply based on the sex of the two people.

Of course my solution to all of this mess is that as far as the government is concerned the word "marriage" should have no legal meaning at all, and should only exist as a private, cultural arrangement between poeple, and if they so choose their religious institution. As far as governments are concerned I think they should all be "Civil Unions" regardless of whether the people involved are of the same or opposite sex.

@ invictus: do you really think that Reagan DECREASED the size of government????

Dude, that's a laugh. He increased it much more than Carter did, even given the 8 years v 4 yrs. So did Bush Senior and H.W. Bush has been even worse in that regard! You can't say with any support that Republicanism means a decreased government size! And it's funny that those "tax-and-spend" liberals actually created a surplus in the 90's.

What a joke!

The big problem I have with gay marriage being enacted is that it's being done through the courts contrary to the stated will of the electorate in some places. The courts shouldn't just nullify referenda on shaky legal grounds to satisfy interest groups.

Sure Reagan increased government, and not just the military to win the Cold War. Welfare jumped a lot while he was President. The thing is he felt bad about it. What I took issue with was your claim that CARTER shrunk government, which is not true.

On "tax-and-spend liberals" making a surplus in the 90s, that was a true Republican Congress that balanced the budget and slowed the growth of government.

Well I disagree with the idea that a court can't or shouldn't overturn a law just because it was enacted by the majority. That's the basis of our liberal democracy. If a law is in conflict with the rights and and rules set out in the constitution (or in these cases in state constitutions), then it should be overturned. That's why rights are in constitutions, to protect minorities and the individual from the government and the tyranny of the majority.

But that's not really what I asked anyway. (Though it is somewhat related).

I asked what legal justification there is for the government to deny two consenting adults with full legal rights as citizens, the ability to enter into a government sanctioned arrangement based on the sex of the two people involved. What is the difference as far as the state is concerned? What possible reason is there for the state to make the distinction?

Just to note. The part of the bible, Leviticus, that saws that male- male relationships are an abomination also says that eating shell fish, pork, and other things are abominations. Chritian groups say that these old laws (part of the commandments, much more than the first ten) are void because of Christs new coventant with man. Somehow being gay doesnt get voided because the Christian groups want to discriminate against them.

Also, Invivtus, the courts are what desegregated schools, not public referenda or legislation. Majority Rules, Minority Rights. The majority can pass any law they like but if it violates my rights it will not stand.

Marriage is just a word. What's the difference between a civil union and marriage? If there is no difference, perhaps everything should just be civil unions from heterosexuals and homosexuals. People seems to be more afraid of gay people using their word than anything else. I say that because I havent heard very many arguments against Gays having Civil Unions.

Palin is hot, she should also be fair game... This is Diplomacy, right, anything goes?
We'll find out all that she doesn't know when (not if) she runs for president in 2012.
As for other conservatives: I predict a resurgence of GOP candidates in 2010 after the Democrats totally muck up the economy, as if it's not in a sad enough state already.

@DrOct
Traditionally, the state's interest in marriage has to do with population growth and control, and the rights of inheritance. Normally, or at least until more recent times, an homosexual relationship would not bring forth children.

Please note, I am not entering this discussion, nor have I commented on one side or the other. I have merely answered a question DrOct asked.

Quite diplomatic, if I do say so myself.

@ Dr. 8 = We are NOT a liberal Democracy. We are a representative Republic. Which means it is the job of the government to protect the minority's rights and interests. As a minority, the gay-lesbian population has the constitutional and moral right to fight tooth and nail over the abuses they are suffering at the hands of those who claim themselves to be "Christian." We who watch will hope they chose to keep it civil rather than become violent. Anyone who believes in "majority rules" needs to leave office for the sake of American Value and Morality.

And I didn't state that Carter shrunk government. He enlarged it. Clinton's economic policy created the 90's not the Republican leaders who still held on to Reagan's faulty "trickle-down economics" plans. Reagan made an entertaining joke of American politics and policy. It's what you get when you put an actor in the white house.

Do you think Bush regrets Iraq and 911 when he sucking sour-apple martinis in his retirement? He'll take his mistaken viewpoint with him to his grave.

@maintgallant - I think we agree on the need to protect minority rights. I'm not really clear why you thought I didn't (unless I'm misreading what you're saying, and you're simply agreeing with me).
You are right we are a Representative Republic, and not explicitly a liberal democracy, but I do think the liberal democratic principals are the basis for much of our system of government, since much of what is in the constitution is concerned with spelling out what rights people have, and certain rights that cannot be violated regardless of what the majority decides.

Also, the "Oct" in DrOct doesn't stand for 8, It's a long story how I started using it, but it's originally from Dr. Octopus that Spider Man villain.

sorry there should have been some smiley attached to that explanation about my screen name, hope it didn't loo like I was offended or anything, just an explanation. :)

@TheMasterGamer - Very diplomatic indeed. The creation of chldren argument is one argument I suppose. It at least makes a little bit of sense from a non-religious perspective, but I'm not sure it holds up anymore, or really ever made much too much sense anyway. Clearly that is no longer the only reason States allow people to marry, and if that is the basis for marriage in the states eyes, then one could certainly argue that there are all kinds of people who shouldn't be allowed to marry, that currently can, not just same sex couples. (How about infertile people?) If that's the primary goal of marriage then we need to reevaluate a lot of things.

Regardless, marriage has and continues to change over time, so the "it's always been this way" argument doesn't really hold much water with me. At one time marriage was primarily about the transfer of property, so surfs couldn't marry since they had no property to pass along. Women used to be considered property to be given away in marriage, we clearly don't ascribe to that idea anymore. There are so many ways that marriage and our concept of it has changed over the history of humanity that I don't think there's really much to an argument that "keeping marriage the way it's always been" makes much sense.

@tetra Anywho, the point is that for republicans/conservatives a non-moderate stance means supporting ridiculous shit like anti-gay marriage ...

in 2004 11 of the states had a gay-marriage ban proposition. 11 of them approved the ban. the narrowest margin was Oregon - a typically liberal state - by 57% - hardly that narrow.

As of today, the people of 30 states have decided that the redefinition of the word Marriage is not ok. Among them such hillbilly, backwards, christian-conservative states as: California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Pennsyvania.

Clearly the American people have decided that the definition of marriage that has existed for 5000 or more years, should remain the definition.

You are right, it is just a word - so don't fuck with it's meaning! Can I just decide to be called a bachelor again even though I'm married? no, because the word bachelor means something specific!

I think that it's probably a good idea for the government to keep out of marriage all together, and I do think that it's fair for any two people - whether they're same sex or opposite sex to file some type of civil contract giving them the same rights (and obligations) afforded to Married couples as a legal matter, without actually calling themselves married or going through any kind of cerimony.

@philcore - to be fair, just because a large number of people have approved of bans on same sex marriage doesn't mean that I and other people can't still think it's "ridiculous shit." :)

But you are right it does undercut the idea that, at least that one issue, is probably not so much of a weakness for the Republican party.

As I've already said, I'm all for the government just discontinuing it's use of the word "marriage," and I certainly do support civil union laws as a step in the right direction, but I think that whatever word the state decides to use, it should be applied equally to all members of the population. Meaning if they're going to use the world "marriage" for heterosexual unions, then they should let homosexual unions do the same thing (likewise, if they offer civil unions to homosexual couples they should allow all couples to use that term. Ultimately they should just have one term, there's just no reason for the state to distinguish between unions for opposite and same-sex couples).

Er, sorry just re-read that second bit and realized i phrased it horribly should be something more like:

"But you are right it does undercut the idea that, at least that one issue, is a problem for the republican party." I should probably also have added "(for now)." As I think demographics will be changing on the issue as older people die off and currently younger voters become a bigger and bigger part of the electorate.

@tetra again: I didn't want to disagree with one of your points and agree with another in the same posting - figuring they'd cancel each other out, so here's the agreeing one.

On you argument regarding the comparison of Creationism to Evolution and their comparisons to Fluid Dynamics and String Theory - you hit the nail on the head. perfect counter-argument. I'll just add a bit about Creationism as a pseudo-science.

A scientific theory is thought up based on observations, then it makes predictions that can be verified or disproved through further observations. counter-evidence weakens a theory and evidence supports it. No theory can ever be 100% verified (although many are pretty damn close).

Evolution (and every other valid scientific theory) was indeed based on observations. From that a theory was developed that predicted things like transitional states between species'. These have been confirmed time and time again through paleontological findings and corroborated with other valid scientific theories such as Carbon-14 dating, and Geological radio-active dating. There have been a few pieces of evidence that seem contradictory, which has weakened the theory somewhat, but the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it has given it support. Many pieces of "evidence" given against evolution by it's deniers isn't really evidence at all, but just thought experiments and rationalizations. Well, if that counted for science then Aristotle's notion that heavy things fall faster that light things, because it just makes sense, would still be believed today (he was full of shit, by the way). A case in point is the complex organ counter (i.e. thought experiment) - "How could the eye 'evolve' when the transition states would provide any evolutionary benefit?". Another is the watchmaker counter, if there seems to be design, there must be a designer.

I have seen both of these carried to a very elaborate argument that would make most non-scientists think that they are actually counter-evidence. But they aren't. They are simply thought experiments.

Creationism on the other hand, is purely based on the Bible. The only observations are words written in a book by men thousands of years ago. From that they pick and chose which pieces they want to say support their pseudo-science, and which pieces, they just outright ignore. A huge clue that you're dealing with a pseudo-science is that counter evidence is not dealt with, instead, it's re-countered with arguments of one of the following types:
1) Well YOU'RE theory has counter evidence too
2) but look how well my theory fits this limited set of data, that data must be flawed

OK a bit of a tangent and a little too wordy, but I had nothing better to do at the moment.

Most people don't care about this evolution debate. They only come to the defense of Creationism when evolutionists disparage the Bible.

Most Christian churches do not preach Biblical inerrancy but Biblical infallibility. Biblical inerrancy means the Bible is correct about everything in it, even obvious historical errors like in Maccabees. Biblical infallibility means the Bible is only totally correct in matters of faith, or as a pretty cool visiting monk put it in Mass one sunday "everything in the Bible is true, and some of it really happened!"

wait a minute, so you believe whats written in a book even though you know most of it is rubbish?

On matters of faith yes. The moral of Noah's Ark is still true even if there was no Flood.