"I don't understand why you think marriage is nothing more than a legal agreement."
When you stated, "Please don't confuse the government sanctioned marriage with the religious ceremony "matrimony" It seemed to suggest a distinction between what goes on in a legal basis and what goes on in a spiritual/emotional one.
What is the difference between believing that two people must be "in love" to be married and that two people must be different genders to be married. Both are based on the beliefs of the individual asserting the statment and as such both carry with them a subjective nature.
Discussion of "love" itself carries with it very spiritually overtoned messages, many faiths even equivicate the words "love" and "god." Why is it ok to demand the sanction of one but it is inapropriate to call for the sanction of the other. Is one any less a matter of personal belief?
In fact your ever trustworthy Wikipedia defines religion as,"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature" A statment like, "when someone finds the one person they want to spend the rest of their life with, more than anyone else, and commit to that... that's marriage" sounds an awful lot like a belief that is centered on a moral claim about reality and human nature, an awful lot like a religious claim.
Besides, I would gladly say that I love my roomates. I console them when they are sorrowing, I care for them when they are sick, I celebrate with them when they are joyful. I would gladly lay down my life for them. If I want to marry them is it required that I have to sexually desire them too?
"That is two individuals so in love with each other, they're willing to public state it and commit to loving each other "til death do them part". That's what marriage is."
Again, if marriage is nothing more than a legal agreement please show me where NY law states that: 1- The individuals must be "in love" 2- They must commit to one another until death.
You have argued time and time again against people who assert that marriage is a union on a higher plane than simply a legal basis and yet here you are waffling on the same issue. So tell me then, is marriage nothing more than a legal arrangment or not? If so then "love" should have nothing to do with it.
"I just googled "Church & State". First result - "Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other."
Site. I can use google to find just about any definition for anything I want. What was the source of this quote? And please don't tell me it is from WIkipedia, you know as well as I do how non-objective that is as a source.
And again, if it is doctrinal then why does it not appear in any official American governmental documents?
"whatever happened with separation of state and religion"
Its a term that gets tossed around in political discussion but was never and is still not part of American governmental policy. Basically that's what happened.
Dan,
"separation of church and state, and it's one of the doctrines that makes America so great"
If it were "doctrine" I would expect it to show up somwhere in America's official governmental documents.
VoiceOfReason
"Let's keep the separation of church and state clear, okay?"
I agree. It is clearly not mentioned in any of America's governmental policies.
"i think what most people would agree on, is that when someone finds the one person they want to spend the rest of their life with, more than anyone else, and commit to that... that's marriage."
I was under the impression you weren't interested in the beliefs of individuals, simply legal proceedings.
If marriage is nothing more than a legal arrangment please point out where in the contract it states "until death do you part." I am very interested as that seems to be more of a matter of religious ceremony.
Furthermore, so you do agree that members of communes and roomates and the like should be afforded the same legal privileges then? Providing they state a commitment (well at least for the individuals to say that for the time being.)
"The whole multiple people thing is only for the religious."
So then you do feel that on a purely legal basis simultaneous marriages among multiple people are ok?
"And for a few references to the fact homosexuality is genetic, here ya go-"
1- You may want to become familar with the old scientific addage "correlation does not equal causation" 2- Neither of those are objective scientific sources even by the furthest reaches of the imagination. One is simply a news article about a study that is not even been finished much less released yet, the other seems to be little more than a trumped up blog entry.
"isn't that one of the main messages of Christianity?"
Tolerence? From what I've researched about Christianity I've never seen that to be a teaching, let alone "one of the main messages."
In fact a quick search of bible.com shows no matches for "tolerance" in the bible at all and the only mention of "tolerate" is in the negative.(eg. Psalm 5:4 O God, you take no pleasure in wickedness;you cannot tolerate the sins of the wicked, Revelation 2:2 I know all the things you do. I have seen your hard work and your patient endurance. I know you don’t tolerate evil people. etc.)
If the government begins to grant the legal privileges (note: not "rights" despite what some people may want to believe) to homosexual couples then I will immediatly apply for the same privileges for my roommates and myself. We share expenses, heck we even get worried if one of us doesn't come home when we said that we would. If marriage is nothing more than a legal arrangment then sex or even romantic feelings should have nothing to do with it.
Why even limit it to just couples? What about communes? Shouldn't the members of those groups recieve those same privileges as well? In fact, why do not all people, no matter what their relationship, who live together recieve these same privileges? Its only fair.
Posted on June 4 at 2:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dan,
"I don't understand why you think marriage is nothing more than a legal agreement."
When you stated, "Please don't confuse the government sanctioned marriage with the religious ceremony "matrimony" It seemed to suggest a distinction between what goes on in a legal basis and what goes on in a spiritual/emotional one.
What is the difference between believing that two people must be "in love" to be married and that two people must be different genders to be married. Both are based on the beliefs of the individual asserting the statment and as such both carry with them a subjective nature.
Discussion of "love" itself carries with it very spiritually overtoned messages, many faiths even equivicate the words "love" and "god." Why is it ok to demand the sanction of one but it is inapropriate to call for the sanction of the other. Is one any less a matter of personal belief?
In fact your ever trustworthy Wikipedia defines religion as,"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature" A statment like, "when someone finds the one person they want to spend the rest of their life with, more than anyone else, and commit to that... that's marriage" sounds an awful lot like a belief that is centered on a moral claim about reality and human nature, an awful lot like a religious claim.
Besides, I would gladly say that I love my roomates. I console them when they are sorrowing, I care for them when they are sick, I celebrate with them when they are joyful. I would gladly lay down my life for them. If I want to marry them is it required that I have to sexually desire them too?
"it's 99.9% accuracy"
Site please.
On Should gay and lesbian couples receive the same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples?