OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

If the state cannot bar a man from marrying a woman based on race, it cannot bar a man from marrying a man based on gender. They both violate the Fourteenth Amendment.



In what way is it a straw man, exactly? I've not misrepresented anyone's argument in order to strike it down more easily, I've simply stated that I believe that it's an inconsistent position to support interracial marriage while being against same-sex marriage, as the reasoning used to argue against both has historically been the same (both interracial and same-sex marriage have been argued against on the grounds that they are contrary to the word of God and will lead to the destruction of society). I do not believe it is an internally consistent position to support one and not the other. In fact I have known opponents of same-sex marriage who believe Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided and I understand that viewpoint and believe it to be consistent even while I wholly disagree with it.



Not quite accurate. This is actually a somewhat unprecedented legal scenario (though a similar thing happened in Colorado in Romer v. Evans) because the constitutional amendment that was passed can be interpreted to be in violation of the constitution it's amending. The legal challenges to Prop 8 are claiming that it's a revision of the constitution as opposed to an amendment, and a revision requires a two-thirds legislative vote rather than a simple majority (in other words, a ballot initiative is not enough to actually rewrite the constitution). If it's challenged on the right grounds it certainly can go before the California Supreme Court. There have already been several lawsuits filed on this. More info here, if you're curious.

Supreme court decisions must be read in the mindframe of when they were written, when clear definitions are not available within the dicta of the ruling itself. It is clear that in the era of Loving v Virginia the legal definition of marriage was one man one woman. We know that Loving v Virginia did not overturn previous Supreme court cases regarding polygamy. Were we to accept your reading of the case, I'm not sure how states could implement any restrictions on marriage. Yet, according to current law and rulings, they can. So, it is clear that Loving did not remove the states right to restrict marriages. It is clear that a state cannot bar based on race. States can bar for other reasons. So, I would again completely disagree that Loving even comes in to play here.

As far as a straw man, you set up the position that one must disagree with loving, and therefore support a states rights to outlaw interracial marriages, if they supported a *** marriage ban. That is a straw man. You misrepresented the argument supporting bans by proclaiming what was and wasn't intellectually consistent with that stance. People can support the one and not the other, it is not a hard line to draw either legally, or intellectually.

I will concede on the ammendment issue, I do not know what rules are in play for ammending california's constitution. They are clearly different than federal. I could be completely wrong about what processes may be successful in that legal battle.

 

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

If the state cannot bar a man from marrying a woman based on race, it cannot bar a man from marrying a man based on gender. They both violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

One quick clarification on why I believe this to be a wrong interpretation of the law. In most jurisdictions right now, the legal definition of marriage is already one man one woman. Until that definition is changed, by statute or court ruling, (or public policy depending on the jurisdiction and what is providing that legal definition), then while it is true that loving prevents laws restricting a man from marrying a woman based on race, and would prevent laws restricting a man from marrying a woman based on gender, to slip in the man marrying a man would not work, legally, because of legal definitions.

That is the whole basis of this debate in the first place. It is agreed, pretty much universally, that for those supporting *** marriage, the definition needs to be changed legally. And for those opposing it, that they want to keep the legal status quo on the definition of marriage.

So, from a legal standpoint, Loving wouldn't come into effect until the definition was first changed, either by statute, or ruling of the courts. Approximately 30 states have ammended their constitutions so that now it would really have to be a U.S. supreme court ruling to change the definition in those states, but it would still require SCOTUS to legally redefine marriage in the ruling itself. At that point, Loving would then be applicable.

 

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I had no idea that the dreadful 'g' word would be asterixed out. Weird.

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Yeah I'm afraid the asterixs were initiated because of the less mature posters. Personally I wouldn't slap you for bypassing the word filter on this discussion (EG "g ay") because I know you aren't using it as an insult.

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Hehe, yeah, I noticed the *** thing myself and have just resorted to typing out same-sex every time

I think I understand now what you're saying re: Loving, Gabriel. I agree with your interpretation of how things are likely to play out, actually. It seems that, in the end, it will come down to whether the SCOTUS will agree that the state cannot prevent two consenting adults from marrying without violating the Fourteenth Amendment. Polygamy doesn't fall under that umbrella (since it consists of more than two adults) and the issue raised earlier of, say, a man wanting to marry his goat also doesn't (since a goat is not a legally consenting adult).

As far as a straw man, you set up the position that one must disagree with loving, and therefore support a states rights to outlaw interracial marriages, if they supported a *** marriage ban. That is a straw man. You misrepresented the argument supporting bans by proclaiming what was and wasn't intellectually consistent with that stance. People can support the one and not the other, it is not a hard line to draw either legally, or intellectually.

Well, I'm not sure I can agree that drawing conclusions based on what opponents of same-sex marriage claim to be their reasoning is a strawman; I'm not willfully misinterpreting their arguments, I am challenging the consistency of them. However, I'd be willing to concede that one can agree with Loving and still disagree with same-sex marriage without being inconsistent if I heard an argument for banning same-sex marriage that was not either "God says it's wrong" or "It will lead to the destruction of society." The closest I can think of is what kanonfutter mentioned, the idea that marriage is intended to produce children, but that's not a valid definition of marriage because not all married couples want to or are able to have children and we don't require that, say, infertile couples be restricted to "civil unions." That line of argument, when pressed, generally boils down to "marriage is meant for procreation because God said so," which brings us right back to where we started. You say the line is not hard to draw, but if that's true, why is it that all of the arguments used to ban same-sex marriage are the same ones that were used to say that blacks could not marry whites?

I will concede on the ammendment issue, I do not know what rules are in play for ammending california's constitution. They are clearly different than federal. I could be completely wrong about what processes may be successful in that legal battle.

Fair enough. My question is, where's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer when you need him? :scratchchin:

 

[Starving_Poet]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I don't frame this as a 14th amendment question, I have always believed this is a question of our final, and in my mind, most important Bill in the Bill of Rights: The Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

People forget that we have a Constitution that doesn't grant us rights, but limits the power of the Federal Government. There is nothing more scary to me than an all-powerful fed.

 

[Kanonfutter]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

<snip>
The closest I can think of is what kanonfutter mentioned, the idea that marriage is intended to produce children,
<snip>

My bad English, I meant the children that might show up through birth or adoption. I do not see why marriage should be tied to producing offspring, as the legal benefits are for childless couples as well.

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

My bad English, I meant the children that might show up through birth or adoption. I do not see why marriage should be tied to producing offspring, as the legal benefits are for childless couples as well.

Oh! Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you meant. My mistake then.

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Wow. Lots of political/legal details flying around. Unfortunately, I'm not very educated in U.S. law processes.

Anyhow, I'm just going to respond to LE's first assertion, that

Any faith that preaches love and compassion shouldn't exclude any of "God's children" for any reason, least of all for sexual orientation.

I'm going to try to point out that exclusion is not what's happening here. So, this post is gonna be more on the theology/religion end than the political/legal side of things.

LE used the phrase "God's children", which is - from a Christian point of view - an accurate description of what we are...or at least, what we're called to be. So, a metaphor involving children may be a good one to attempt to illustrate the situation.

Christianity preaches the love and compassion of a God who is, while ultimately wanting the best for all of us, quite beyond our understanding in many ways. This means that Christians might view their God - I'll say "our" God henceforth, since I'm included in that group - as a loving dad; a wise dad whom we don't always understand - or agree with - but we have faith that he loves us and wants the best for all his children.

So, suppose a father came home one day from work, greets all his children, and gives them all a gift - a cool set of markers, crayons, pencil-crayons and other drawing accessories. He then brings them to the kitchen, where he puts a big stack of blank paper on the table and spends some time showing them how to draw, inviting them to make all kinds of beautiful pictures. It soon becomes one of the favorite activities of the children.

Later, some children decide to try drawing on a new medium - the walls of various rooms in the house, white and devoid of art (at least, at child height). So they start making pictures on the walls.

When dad comes home, he explains to them that No, they're not to do this; it's not allowed. The children might complain - saying: Why can't we draw? Our brothers and sisters in the kitchen are drawing, why won't you let us draw?

But the truth is that of course that they are allowed to draw - that's what the paper is for. They're not being excluded from anything more than the other children. It's just that drawing isn't meant for the walls, and never was.

Does this mean the dad doesn't love those children anymore? Of course not. Nor would he tell his other children to hunt down and destroy any children caught drawing on the walls. But does that mean he'll just let them do whatever they want? Of course not to that, too. He's the dad, it's his house and his rules, and the children have to deal with that.

~~~

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I think the metaphor is pretty clear. The reality is obviously a lot more complicated, and a lot more hurtful to those involved. I won't pretend otherwise, and I won't pretend to know how much pain has been caused. But the Christian perspective is that human sexuality is a gift, given to us by God, meant for certain things and not for others.

So, Christians are not called to go interfering with what consenting adults do in their private lives - but for any church, to marry two individuals is saying that God puts his seal of approval on the relationship. Obviously, there's a problem if God doesn't approve of some relationships.

This raises two questions:
1) what relationships does God disapprove of?
2) why does he disapprove?

To answer (1), I would look in the bible. Now, I understand this is a rather huge statement to make. "Why should I believe the bible is the authoritative source on what God does and does not want?" should be the first question on everyone's mind right now. This is a completely separate issue, and one that I'm not prepared to deal with right now. Suffice it to say that most Christians consider the bible to be the authoritative source on many things, including what God does and does not want.
Sexual relationships that God disapprove of in the bible are myriad. Sibling x sibling, parent x child, human x animal, anyone x prostitute, and even religion a x religion b are all mentioned at some time. (Religion a x religion b is a softer condition, as it applied only to the Israelites in the Old Testament) Man x man and woman x woman are also included in this list. Man x many women seemed to be allowed by God - as a sort of concession - in the Old Testament, but he did advise against it.

On to question (2). Why the huge list? Why does God have a problem with all these kinds of relationships? We might try guessing. Some might seem obvious, others less so. Parent x child (even generalized to any adult x child) seems obviously twisted, and I hope many here agree.
God also seems to want sexual relationships to be lasting and meaningful, which ex-nays unions with prostitutes and animals.
We can guess that the ban on sibling x sibling might have something to do with genetics, but that's just what it is - a guess. An educated guess at best, by the standards of science.
The issue in question seems less obvious. Why is it so important to God that a sexual relationship be between a man and a woman? We can wave hands about how it seems more natural and was just meant to be that way, but that's not an actual reason...those are symptoms of the reason. The reason itself is not at all obvious.

I do not claim to know this reason. I have a theological theory about it, based on thinking about this issue for ages and hearing many ideas on the matter. But that reason is an essay all to itself, which touches on many aspects on Christianity all at once.
And it's still just a guess, lol.

I do, however, have a solid faith that God knows what he's doing. And so there are many issues that I still struggle with, many of which touch my life more directly than this one, for which I have no easy answer.

~~~

One thing I do know, however.

No human - especially no Christian - has any right to judge another, or hate them, or exact "divine punishment" on them. When the church goes persecuting homosexuals (or, historically, burning them at the stake), it is failing in its God-given mission, not succeeding. Judgement belongs to God alone.
Going back to the dad-and-children metaphor, the kids drawing on paper have no authority to punish the kids drawing on the walls. If dad comes home and finds one of his children beaten and ridiculed because he was drawing on the wall, woe to the aggressor! But if one of them is drawing on the wall, the others are completely in their rights to remind him that dad doesn't approve.
In my understanding, that's what the church is doing when it says that marriage (which, in their view, belongs to God) remains a lifelong, monogamous commitment between a man and a woman. We're trying to condemn a practise, not exlude people.

@ LE: sorry for taking so long to get back to you. As probably evident by the large block of text above, I needed a proportionally long block of time to compose. xD

 

[sirpoopsalot]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

the problems with your analogy are multiple, but here's one:

- excluding same-sex couples from marrying in the exact same manner as their hetro counterparts is like saying "bill and sally can draw on the same piece of paper together, but fred and ted can't"

I think the drawing on the wall analogy ties more into the 'man marrying a goat' example from previous posts.

 

[whommy]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

The issue in question seems less obvious. Why is it so important to God that a sexual relationship be between a man and a woman? We can wave hands about how it seems more natural and was just meant to be that way, but that's not an actual reason...those are symptoms of the reason. The reason itself is not at all obvious.

The reason seems pretty obvious when you think about God's rules regarding wasting of "seed," doesn't it? I always assumed that any sort of sexual relationship had to be capable of not wasting seed (presumably this means could produce a child) to be legit in the Bible.

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

- excluding same-sex couples from marrying in the exact same manner as their hetro counterparts is like saying "bill and sally can draw on the same piece of paper together, but fred and ted can't"

I think the drawing on the wall analogy ties more into the 'man marrying a goat' example from previous posts.

Conceded that the analogy is far from perfect, but the point it's trying to get across is nothing so complicated. All it intends to say can be summed up as:
[Christian PoV]
-Human sexuality is a gift from God; he has ultimate authority on its use. (dad's house, dad's crayons, etc.)
-There are restrictions on its use. These restrictions apply to all people. (nobody is allowed to draw on the wall, whether they want to or not)
-The reasons for the restrictions won't always seem obvious. (because, intellectually, we are like children compared to God)
[/Christian PoV]

I think that's about it.

The reason seems pretty obvious when you think about God's rules regarding wasting of "seed," doesn't it? I always assumed that any sort of sexual relationship had to be capable of not wasting seed (presumably this means could produce a child) to be legit in the Bible.

I remember the passage you're talking about. It is a single case, and (iirc) it is never explicitly stated anywhere that wasting seed is counter to God's will. What the man was doing was denying his wife a child; I think it might be a case of favoritism? Really cruel favoritism, given the cultural context. I could be wrong - but I don't think one can use that passage alone to extrapolate a global "no wasting seed" rule. My two cents.

 

[Andronicus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

It seems I have sparked quite a discussion, which is definitely a good thing. Since I have absolutely no knowledge of law, least of all American law, I will once more offer my thoughts on the theological and sociological side of things.

Although I have noticed in the past that trying to change the minds of people who categorise things as unacceptable based on a series of texts written a few thousand years ago is only slightly less fruitful as dropping seeds on my bedroom floor, watering them and waiting for an apple-tree to sprout.

But here goes.

It irks me to see people using lines in a text written in a different era, for a different people, as guidelines for their own life, or that of the people around them.
There are so many great things religion can teach us; loving the people around you, sharing, trying to make the world a better place through compassion and friendship... And what do so many of them choose to adhere to? Bits about how same-sex relationships are no-no's.

You'd think that if people look around them to see that ten percent of people (guesstimate, don't slap wiki-numbers around my ears here people... ) are homosexual), this inane clinging to the Holy Book might stop, that common sense might kick in, saying "Gee, maybe things have changed, lets have another look at that rule...".
Which is how societies have been evolving throughout time. Things that were previously thought of as shameful are now commonspread. Why is this *** marriage thing so different? What really irks you so much about it?

Can anyone offer me a reason that is not based on the bible or the old "One man one woman" definition?

I guess I just thought that people who paid quite so much attention to the rules "God" wrote down, would have paid more attention when Jesus was teaching class.

This'll be the last I have to say about this, btw. I feel myself getting angrier and angrier, and my posts become less and less coherent.


Oh, addendum.

The latest things Thrandir wrote down are a perfect example of what I mean. The no seed wasting BS.

Why was that in the Bible? The people of Israel were taking horrible beatings from the nations around them, there was war, famine, disease and death. So what did they do? They wrote a "don't waste seed" rule in the Bible, so people would be more likely to bear children.

OFCOURSE you can't use that rule to extrapolate a rule today. That was never the freakin' point! You can't use ANY SPECIFIC rule in the Bible to form a rule or law in today's society; It was never meant to apply to us!

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I agree that the analogy falls apart pretty quickly under scrutiny, but all the same, that was a thoughtful and interesting post, Thrandir, so thanks.

So, Christians are not called to go interfering with what consenting adults do in their private lives - but for any church, to marry two individuals is saying that God puts his seal of approval on the relationship. Obviously, there's a problem if God doesn't approve of some relationships.

For the record, I don't think any church should have to perform any marriage ceremony that violates the tenets of its faith. But there's quite a leap from that to actually preventing people from having the right to live as they will outside of a church. Look at Prop 8: the Mormon church spent millions to ensure it was passed. That sure sounds like interfering with what consenting adults do in their private lives to me. Now there are men and women who won't be able to visit their partner in the ICU because they aren't of the right sexual orientation according to a religion they may not even believe in. This is hurting real people, people who don't even ask that someone else's God accept them but simply want the law to treat them the same way it treats everyone else. They only want our right to swing our fists to stop at their noses. Nothing more.

I don't know. To respond with an analogy of my own, it's sort of like saying that I won't cook a meal for anyone that includes bell peppers because I hate them, which is completely my right, and if my friends want bell peppers in their food well they can just eat somewhere else and I won't stop them. Nothing wrong with that. But that's not enough for me, so on top of that, I'm going to the grocery store and hunting down all the bell peppers and throwing them away so no one else can cook with them either because the thought of other people eating bell peppers and enjoying them just disgusts me. Sorry, I know it's a ridiculous analogy.

 

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I believe california civil unions already cover the ICU question Caly.

 

[TheNix]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Forget the "holy" books, forget the laws, just look into your own hearts and tell me that God would object to two people who are in love, expressing their love physically, in what is the ultimate form of communication between two people.

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

For the record, I don't think any church should have to perform any

marriage ceremony that violates the tenets of its faith. But there's quite a leap from that to actually preventing people from having the right to live as they will outside of a church. Look at Prop 8: the Mormon church spent millions to ensure it was passed. That sure sounds like interfering with what consenting adults do in their private lives to me. Now there are men and women who won't be able to visit their partner in the ICU because they aren't of the right sexual orientation according to a religion they may not even believe in. This is hurting real people, people who don't even ask that someone else's God accept them but simply want the law to treat them the same way it treats everyone else.

Emphasis mine.

Yes, this is exactly the issue. I don't know what the ICU is, but (speaking tentatively here) if it's not related to the mormon church, then it sounds to me like mormons have no business affecting it.
Ah...what am I trying to say here...basically, it comes back to the original post I made on page 1. The meaning of marriage. I agree that nothing the church says or does should affect the state-given rights of any person. (And therefore, anything legal, political or financial.) But is marriage a state-given right? Does the state have the authority to change the traditional meaning of marriage? That's the question I'm asking in this thread. Based on that meaning, anyways, it's impossible for two men to marry; one man cannot marry another any more than I could give the color blue a lift home after school. But the state might want to say, "No, the definition of the word and concept of marriage belong to me, and I will change them to suit public opinion." To be honest, if a government did that, there's not much we can do except protest, saying: "No, please leave us this word and concept, because it is very important to us." That's what I'm concerned with at the moment; the 'jurisdiction' - for lack of a better word - of the word and concept of marriage.

On anything state/rights related, my opinion is solid: equal basic rights all around.

I don't know. To respond with an analogy of my own, it's sort of like saying that I won't cook a meal for anyone that includes bell peppers because I hate them, which is completely my right, and if my friends want bell peppers in their food well they can just eat somewhere else and I won't stop them. Nothing wrong with that. But that's not enough for me, so on top of that, I'm going to the grocery store and hunting down all the bell peppers and throwing them away so no one else can cook with them either because the thought of other people eating bell peppers and enjoying them just disgusts me. Sorry, I know it's a ridiculous analogy.

lol, it's a fine analogy. It would be ridiculous if it happened, but it gets your point across, and it's a point on which I agree.

@ Andronicus:
although I think you misunderstood the seed spillage stuff (the bible itself didn't even exist at that time, for one thing), I certainly hear your frustration. Many of your points have much truth to them, too.
I don't know anything about your beliefs, but I think all this would make much more sense to you if you looked at it from the perspective of someone who believes in the God described in the bible.

I'm certainly not just blindly accepting some parts of the bible and ignoring others. The reason we (Christians in general) constantly study the bible is to do just as you said - to try to figure out what still applies today (and how it applies in this new and different cultural context), and what God intended for only a certain place/time/cultural context. It's not always easy or obvious. One of the few times it is obvious is when it's talking about loving the people around us, sharing, and trying to make the world a better place through compassion and friendship. In fact, Jesus said that all the laws and words of the prophets can be summed up in loving God and loving our neighbors (ie. all people).

But it's a far cry between loving someone and letting them do whatever they want. The dad-and-child analogy, however flawed it be, at least proves this. Loving someone sometimes consists exactly of telling them something they don't want to hear.

Now, the church has a terrible track record in loving people with whom they disagree. I'll not dress it up. Terrible. What is more, by no means do I speak for all people who call themselves "Christian" when I say we've moved past that. But look at Jesus - he loved the outcasts, the sinners, the ones that others shunned and hated. Did he condone their deeds? No. But that didn't stop him from visiting with them, sharing compassion, and encouraging them in their problems (as opposed to threatening them to shape up). The people he threatened were the religious leaders of the time, the ones doing the hating. Them, he angrily told to clean up their act. Christians - however terrible we've been at it - should be doing the same. A sad irony it is that so often the church turns into the very thing it was called to speak out against. There's human beings for you. :/

...

Huge tangent I've gone on. I've made my point, though. No need to respond, if you don't want to. Like I said, I think I understand your frustration. Christians can be bothersome to deal with, whether or not you're one of them

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I don't know what the ICU is, but (speaking tentatively here) if it's not related to the mormon church, then it sounds to me like mormons have no business affecting it.

Oops, sorry, ICU = intensive care unit, as in, at a hospital. Gabriel correctly pointed out that civil unions provide the right to visit one's spouse in the ICU, along with the other rights that marriage entails, although it's still not quite the same since those rights are not recognized by the federal government or granted outside of the couple's state of residence, so the scenario I mentioned can still occur, even to those couples that are protected by civil unions (which not all states have).

But is marriage a state-given right?

Well, yes. From the court case I mentioned earlier in the thread, Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Of course it's referring specifically to interracial marriage but the implication that marriage in general is a right granted by the Constitution is clear.

Based on that meaning, anyways, it's impossible for two men to marry; one man cannot marry another any more than I could give the color blue a lift home after school.

lol. Yeah, I do understand this viewpoint, but I guess I just don't see the concept of marriage having any particular inviolable meaning, not least because marriage itself has changed so much over time. I mean, it wasn't that long ago that marriage and love were considered mostly separate concepts. People married for political and economic reasons, not for love. It was essentially viewed as a business contract that was intended to produce offspring, and that was entered into to benefit the larger extended family rather than the couple in question. In other words, marriage has changed so fundamentally that there is really nothing "traditional" about it now that is left to protect, if that makes sense. For example, the idea that a woman is a full partner in her marriage is quite new and is in significant contrast to the previous view that a woman was merely her husband's property. If a change like that can be accepted by society, why not a change that says that both people involved need not be of different genders?

Just some more food for thought.

 

[Liquid_Evil]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

@ Thrandir- Thanks for the reply, this has been an interesting thread so far. I doubt any minds are going to be changed in the course of these posts, but I’ll respond in kind with some more of my thoughts. Bear with me if I stray too far from the topic at hand.

[Christian PoV]
-Human sexuality is a gift from God; he has ultimate authority on its use. (dad's house, dad's crayons, etc.)
-There are restrictions on its use. These restrictions apply to all people. (nobody is allowed to draw on the wall, whether they want to or not)
-The reasons for the restrictions won't always seem obvious. (because, intellectually, we are like children compared to God)
[/Christian PoV]

[My PoV]
-Human sexuality is based on genetics.* Each individual has ultimate authority in the use of their own sexuality.
-Because sexuality (homosexual or otherwise) is a product of the natural course of evolution in human beings, there should be no restrictions concerning the sexual practices of consenting adults.
-In general, people fear what they don’t understand (but this can also be traced back to genetics) and that fear is at the root of all imposed restrictions regarding sexuality and the double standards between hetero- and homosexual unions.
-At our most basic, we are all human beings and we all deserve happiness, and if someone can find it in a same-sex marriage, what right would anyone (or governing body, church, etc) have to tell them otherwise?

It’s hard to empathize with strangers that don’t share your way of life so think of it in terms you can understand and relate to more easily. What if your offspring was homosexual? Wouldn’t you hope that they were treated equally in society and given the same rights as another man’s heterosexual children? Doesn’t that include giving them the opportunity to find happiness with a life partner through marriage?

Because you and I view marriage differently, you as a divine bond reserved only for religious heterosexual couples (correct me if this wasn’t the case), and I as the official step in recognizing a couple as “legitimate†in the eyes of society and of government, I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on this. (But that’s fine! The world needs all kinds…lotsa different genes means more success for the human race :thumbup

*Geneticists have discovered the genetic roots of male homosexuality but while they have not discovered the “g ay gene†(the actual genes that increase the probability of male homosexuality,) they have located a region of a chromosome that is involved-genetic marker at Xq28. Researchers theorize that the genes for male homosexuality may be passed on to the next generation, not by g ay men, but by their sisters. They theorize that the so-called g ay genes may incline their carriers, male or female, toward the same behavior: to have sex with men. If the carriers are male, then they become male homosexuals (but are then unable to reproduce to pass on the gene). The reduced reproductive success of g ay men is offset by the heightened reproductive success of their sisters, and the gene survives. This idea is supported by studies that have found that female maternal relatives of homosexual men have more children than female maternal relatives of heterosexual men.