@Sarg - Sorry I went to dinner and missed a shitload, but I wanted to point out one thing on my version of the cookie/cheese (which for convenience/lack of offense sake we'll call white bread and wheat bread).

I was not saying the government would sell both in their cafeteria. I explicitely made it clear that under my plan, the government wouldn't ever recognize that white bread existed. All bread would be wheat bread.

Yeah I hadn't realized that you were part of the club either Sarg.
I didn't realize we had a LGBT community on this site, to be honest. Or I am reading too much into the word club. =)

Yeah most of us are pretty content to live and let live. We'd like our rights thank you very much. But we don't want to be abrasive about it.

On-cookies. Well maybe if they're low cal. ;)

Oh, and you don't have to be on the roster to count the joggers amongst your friends and peers and help them win the race.

Oh, and Adkins now has "oreos" that are low cal and very low sugar and taste *incredible*!

@Draugnar: I think that is a good plan. Your version is a good viable option. It is the churches and conservative right that would stand against that kind of egalitarianism. Something that hasn't been mentioned is the power and money that marriage provides church institutions. If they lost the monopoly on marriage as the dominant institution for recognizing officially committed relationships, they would lose a lot of relevance and income.

As for the analogy issue, Putin33 clearly missed the point. The cookies/cottage cheese analogy is too reliant on emotive judgements based on the values placed on those words - something that I think has been overplayed in the marriage/union debate, at least in terms of gay people. The bread analogy gets rid of the emotional side and looks the issue squarely at what is being provided, allowed, and what is not. The emotive values of the word 'marriage' seems much more important to the religious institutions and the far right - for the reasons set out above.

And again, I would love to see same sex marriages allowed everywhere. I just feel this is a good stepping stone to getting nationwide acceptance that much quicker and reaching the day where we won't have to say LGBTQ community as if it is divisive and can say it more like saying Irish-American Community or IT Community where it is a means for self identification and pride without any negative connotations from mainstream America.

Power and money that marriages provide churches? Please...

The Bible teaches that the purpose of marriage is to illustrate and teach us about the relationship between Christ and the church. The man is taught to love his wife as Christ loved the church (serving her and laying his life down for her) while the wife is taught to submit to her husband (as the church submits to Christ). Homosexual marriages do not illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church. Christ doesn't lay down his life for himself and neither does the church submit to itself.

That's the reason Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage, not because of power and money..

And for the record, I think the idea of the state only recognizing civil unions and marriage being a religious institution is fine since I view marriage as a religious institution anyway.

Don't know why I let myself get sucked into this thread... This is precisely why I started posting strategy threads. Maybe I'll go make another one of those..

Jacob, perhaps you should stick to your strategy threads, they always so insightful and interesting but I think your comments here are, forgive me, slightly naive.

You say that "That's the reason Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage, not because of power and money.."

Of course, no church leader is going to come out and say that they will miss the revenues. Of course, they will place the argument on morale lines. That's a no brainer.
But behind the curtain, it is about money and power (for isn't it almost always? Cynical, I know). The church has a monopoly of influence, especially in the US, and marriage is crucial to that.

"The Bible teaches that the purpose of marriage is to illustrate and teach us about the relationship between Christ and the church." It's statements like these that make this debate really difficult and uncomfortable. We're talking about marriage equality rights - placing God and the Bible at the heart of the debate isn't helpful or justified. That would be turning liberal democracies into countries like Saudi Arabia, governed by the strict particular interpretations of particular religious texts to enforce a certain set of cultural values.


And as for you statement that "The man is taught to love his wife as Christ loved the church" - Christ was not a frequent visitor to any form of church, his message was much more about personal connection to God rather than the necessity of any particular institutional body. The extent to which church propaganda spreads misinformation in this way is disgraceful.

"The Bible teaches that the purpose of marriage is to illustrate and teach us about the relationship between Christ and the church." It's statements like these that make this debate really difficult and uncomfortable. We're talking about marriage equality rights - placing God and the Bible at the heart of the debate isn't helpful or justified. That would be turning liberal democracies into countries like Saudi Arabia, governed by the strict particular interpretations of particular religious texts to enforce a certain set of cultural values. We're not that and we should strive to keep religion as a personal affair seperate from the state.

Sarg, I specifically framed my post by stating that it is what the bible teaches, a subject in which I am by no means naive.

Many churches do not act as they should - another topic which I am, unfortunately, well acquainted with.

But to say that marriage is about money and power in the eyes of the church is simply wrong.

Placing God and the bible at the center of the debate isn't helpful or justified?

No, taking the bible out of the center of the debate is not helpful or justified considering God is the one who ordained marriage and considering we know about it because of the bible..

"But to say that marriage is about money and power in the eyes of the church is simply wrong."

I'm saying it's an implicit concern for them, a strong motive. Of course, their main priority for the church I'm sure is simply to be the lucky ones who get to bless couples entering into official commitment with one another.

"considering God is the one who ordained marriage"

From a Christian perspective only. You say it like it's fact, and fact for everyone.

But it's not a fact for everyone.

Marriage predates the Christian Church, and in societies that openly accepted homosexuality, Sparta for one, same sex marriage was not allowed. Simply food for thought.

I personally support immediate legalization of same sex marriage.

Exactly, Tettleton. Unfortunately some people are so wrapped up in the Christian world view that it is impossible for them to realise such details. It's annoying that such people even enter debates - the whole point of a debate is to exchange views, discuss and deliberate. Militant Christians come from a position where they are unwilling and unable to do this so debating becomes pointless, they just want to harangue you with their views, or rather 'the facts', until you are silenced.

Sarg, if their motive is power and money then they are not the true church.

Also, my comment regarding Marriage is from a Christian point of view, because I am one. Why would I state it from another perspective? You're certainly not stating things from a perspective other than your own..

Tettleton, of course marriage predates the Christian church, because it was established with the first man and first woman. Christ makes this clear when he talks about marriage.

Sarg, when you say that certain people shouldn't enter the debate then YOU are the one trying to silence people. And also, when did I become militant? Lol

Has anyone brought up the fact that the Church only became tied to marriage during the middle ages?

'My main point though was that the term marriage has a psychological value that is being underestimated by this civil union argument.'

i'm with you on this, i just want to change the psychological value of marriage aswell.

By making it not something which has any legal standing or meaning outside of the church.

@damian, 'civil union' may be a good choice, but unfortunately some countries (like mine) has created a second class citizen by implementing civil unions which do not have the same rights as marriage (though it is a big improvement over not having any civil union option at all) the main right being denied gay couples in ireland being the option to adopt a child. (though a single person can adopt, only is they are related or if they are a widow/widower) joint adoption to create some kind of legally binding family is not allowed. (it does however give them the right to inherit, make medical decisions, and share property... all things which are likely to be pretty important to any couple)

As for the "considering God is the one who ordained marriage", exactly, that's why i think we have to use another word for the equality we're looking for.

"But we don't want to be abrasive about it. "

Yes, heaven forbid anybody who 'abrasive' about their equality. If only all those historical movements were more polite, I'm sure they would have gotten more accomplished.

Anyway if gay marriage doesn't mean much to you,then I don't get how you can speak for the multitudes of people for whom it does matter quite a lot. Naturally, if it doesn't mean anything to you, then the civil union thing is terrific. But that's not the case for many. As usual, self-proclaimed moderates pretend like they have a monopoly on good ideas.

Is it just me or did Tettleton just say something awesome? Anyone?

High five, dude. *high-five*

Why oh why do I read these threads involving religion? Closed minds (like Jacob's) will never be changed by reasoned but different views. I was disgusted by the blinkered "it says in the Bible so it must be true" brigade when at school and that was a LONG time ago now!

"The argument you seem to be making is that because I'm not gay, my opinions (even when they aim to support your cause) are uniformed and irrelevant. Am I misunderstanding you?" - I'm saying you need to listen to actual concerns of the LGBTQ community before you provide a universal ruling on what the correct way to go about solving their issues is. At the risk of sounding like a crazy person, I think the opinions of gay people matter more than others when it comes to issues of gay rights. I don't want straight people telling me what the gay rights movements agenda should be. How could your outside-looking-in understanding possibly be more meaningful than my actual lived experiences?
And intent does not erase effect. You can say all you want that your ideas aim to help the LGBTQ cause, but if you provide a solution the LGBTQ community is largely unsatisfied with, then ultimately your actions, though entered with the best of intents have still harmed the community on the whole. The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.

As to this whole get the government out of marriage thing, the fact is, you're all providing a solution that is technically equal, or legally equal, constitutionally equal even. But that's not what this is about. It's not about being equal, technically. It's about treating everyone with respect and dignity no matter who they are. And even if you say that originally marriage was a purely religious institution (and for the record I still think that argument is a load of bollocks), you have to admit that in the intervening millennia it has in fact grown past that, into an important social, legal, and political institution. You can't erase all that history of "marriage" being an institution like that, on the spot by just changing the word. And, I don't think all those connotations that have been attached to the word marriage, will transfer over to the sterile and obviously recently coined term "civil union". By denying the LGBTQ community legal access to, not only the functional aspects of marriage, but the word itself you are denying them access to an institution that has historically been the only way of really legitimizing a relationship in the eyes of society.

And Draug I have not forgotten about your gay friend. I know he meant a lot to you, and I am in no way trying to criticize your intent. Your heart is in the right place, and I know that. But the fact is, just because you had a gay friend, you don't really understand what it is to be gay. I have black friends, does that give me the right to comment on what it is like to live as a black person in America? No. I have tons of female friends, does that I mean I know what sexism is like? Of course not. I'm sure you all mean well, but frankly, you don't understand, and you never will.

@Mafia - what I am striving to provide is a first step on the road to what you desire. Unfortunately, what you want may not even happen in our lifetimes if ever. There will always be bigots and you can't legislate the way people feel deep down. If you think you can, you are only fooling yourself.

I suppose then where we differ is in what the ultimate effect of the proposed legal change would be. I think that civil unions for everyone, legal marriage is abolished would be both a step back and a dead end for the gay rights movement. It would set us back, because it would shut down access to an institution with history and respect and all kinds of other connotations, and would at the same time, be very, very difficult to move forward from. Once legal marriage is abolished, how do you get it unabolished, and provide access to it for LGBTQ people?

"Unfortunately, what you want may not even happen in our lifetimes if ever." - I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Access to legal marriage (not civil unions, but actual marriage), for gay people in the US is absolutely achievable in my lifetime, and I'd venture to say you'll probably see it in your lifetime too. (I am I suspect quite a bit younger than you.)
If you're saying that an end to anti-LGBTQ bigotry is unattainable in my lifetime, I'd completely agree, but to answer that point, I'd still like to see as much progress in that direction as possible, and I think full access to legal marriage is a much bigger step, and a much better springboard for further progress than civil unions and the abolition of legal marriage (which I fear could very very easily actually turn out to be a setback).

I'll say it again, the argument of people like Jacob that says the Church has held a monopoly on marriage from time immemorial is patently false. The Church did not even get deeply into the marriage business until the High Middle Ages and in early Christianity there wasn't even a wedding ceremony. Marriage was always a secular alliance of families, one which Christianity had little to do besides a couple of small passages in the bible. When they did get into the marriage business it was a power play for completely secular reasons, by making the church the guardian of marriage they put their hands on the levers of power and had a say in alliances (Due to broad laws on incest any marriage could be disallowed), lineage, and inheritance. By taking away the religion's monopoly (not that it even has a monopoly in the first place) over marriage you are not challenging the word of god you are altering an outdated medieval institution.

Hammac - so since I believe something to be true that differs from your opinion I am now closed-minded? I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed by the name-calling/labeling.

"naive"
"close-minded"
"militant"
"people like Jacob"

What exactly do you have a problem with in "people like Jacob" is that not what you believe and are there not many who believe it like you?