Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 9,701-9,750 of 12,463

[cerebus]

Wes wrote: "Science is a religion, as is atheism. "
*sigh* here we go again. If you feel up to it, read back through the preceding 9000+ posts, this has come up lots of times, and has been dealt with lots of times. Science is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion.

[Travis]

Wes wrote: "I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."

Your answer, and the question itself, both point that that you understand neither science or..."

science is a religion, if religion actually provided any evidence for it's claims.
comparing religion to science is like comparing unicorns to horses.

atheism is a lack of belief in something, so it's a religion in the same way not jogging is a form of exercise.

[cHriS]

Heather wrote: calling someone homophobic is not emotive language.."

....using the word here, as some do, to deliberately provoke in a derogatory way, is.

[Maria]

People have the "right" to be homophobic just like people have the "right" to be gay.

In both cases as long as they don't try to force their beliefs/lifestyle on others or harm anyone because of their beliefs, or deny anyone else their rights as a human being, then what difference does it make?

[cHriS]

Steve wrote:the 90% of Americans who support same-sex marriage.."

....and is that exactly 90%, not 89%. And do they all live in the 9 states that have legalized same-sex marriage, representing 15.7% of the U.S. population?

No they can't do, the maths don't add up. So the 74.3% must live in the other states.

[Heather]

cHriS wrote: "Heather wrote: calling someone homophobic is not emotive language.."

....using the word here, as some do, to deliberately provoke in a derogatory way, is."

They are not using it to provoke; all indications of tone are that of a calm person trying to explain that yes, certain users' views are rather homophobic. I am sure that if someone came in here talking about immigration reform in the same sort of light as those being called homophobic, someone would call the person's view xenophobic. It's not a view, but rather a fact; there is an irrational fear taking place, the definition of a phobia.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Anything will be emotive because we all know what we are talking about denying rights to a group of people for flimsy reasons.
..."

Shanna, you are right of course. That is if you are looking at the issue with blinkered vision.

There is more than one point of view here and to name call because someone does not happen to share your point of view is no better than a kid taking his ball back because the others won't play by his rules.

Some religious people (not me) have a real dilemma with the gay marriage v their religious belief and because they put their belief first does not make them homophobic.

If both your kids asked you to attend their school concert and play and both were held at the same time on the same day in separate schools, so that you could only attend one, would you go see your favourite kid?

The atheists here don't have that issue and can jump on the 'gay marriage' band wagon to, have a dig at religion.

It's not a discussion the atheist is having here it's a lecture as to what they see as right.

Did you not say something about an 8 foot fence a few posts back?

[Mary]

But Chris, this issue is not about time management, or which spouse goes to which event. If I don't agree with gay marriage, and I cite my religion as a source, then is any argument "hands off" because it's my belief system under attack? Or should you expect to be asked to defend your position and reasoning? Like I said earlier, this is not a trivial issue. And to say you believe one group should be denied rights based on your religion? Well, then be prepared to be challenged. It's not atheists having "a go", its others trying to defend a flimsy argument if you find it uncomfortable to defend your argument, you may want to yourself for that reason.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Anything will be emotive because we all know what we are talking about denying rights to a group of people for flimsy reasons.
..."

Shanna, you are right of course. That is if you a..."

If religion is for denying someone their rights, then of course we will jump on them.
The idea you and robert keep promoting that it's about everything but the actual idea of a right being denied and that people are only for gay marriage is to have a dig at religion is not only emotive and derogatory, but also a petty dodge to avoid debating the actual issue.

say you have two kids, one is imaginary and the other actually exists, but you insist on them being treated equally and even go so far as to treat the actual kid worse than the imaginary, what does that say about you as a parent?

[Steve]

cHriS wrote: "Heather wrote: calling someone homophobic is not emotive language.."

....using the word here, as some do, to deliberately provoke in a derogatory way, is."
So, if we say someone "has an illogical, irrational fear of same sex couples" you will be happy?

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: "But Chris, this issue is not about time management, or which spouse goes to which event. .."

...no it's not Mary you are correct, it's about a dilemma of choice, which a lot of people have, about a lot of things in life.... religious belief v gay marriage is just one of those dilemma's. It is not for any atheist to tell that person they are wrong to have that belief or wrong to put that belief before gay marriage.

Sometimes the only solution is to compromise if that is possible other-wise you will eventually have winners and losers. The rules in a democracy are not about what is right and what is wrong, they are about what the majority think is right.

Mary wrote: And to say you believe one group should be denied rights based on your religion

I have not said that, you have. That is the dilemma. You go to one kids school, the other kid does the play without their mother watching.

First it has to be established that there are 'rights' which have been denied. That is what these debates are all about...establishing rights. You are for gay marriage I guess, I am not. And so the debate goes on.....unless you live in one of the nine states of the US that allow gay marriage, New Zealand, which voted for gay marriage last week or one of the few other countries that allow it, you are talking about establishing rights, which is not the same as rights.

Is it my right to own a hand gun?

[cHriS]

Steve wrote: So, if we say someone "has an illogical, irrational fear of same sex couples" you will be happy?"

.....no, I won't. But I will if you go back and read the many previous posts that were written before you got here.

[Mary]

Chris, your two kids argument holds no water. We are not talking about missing out on an optional school activity due to over scheduling. .We are talking about denying adults the same exact legal rights as another group of adults has. Civil unions are not equal under the law. These include legal rights, access to medical care and decision making, parental rights and many more.

And how do you suppose those 9 states
And 11 countries including South Africa, came to the decision to allow it? That's right, through debate, discussion and serious review law.

You se to want the conversation to stop at " I'm against it". But if we all stopped there then women wouldn't have the vote, blacks would still be enslaved, mixed marriages would be outlawed, children would work in factories. There were many who cited religious reasons for denying those rights too. These changed came about through a raising of people's consciousness through discussion, protest and debate.

I can go around believing the world is flat, with ally flat lander friends all day long. But the minute I tell all those "spherists" that they can't marry, or work, or live, or adopt like I do, then my beliefs are no longer just mine, now they are affecting others.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: your two kids argument holds no water. We are not talking about missing out on an optional school activity due to over scheduling. We are talking about denying adults the same exact legal rights as another group of adults has "

No Mary we are not, your are.

I see the word marriage as meaning a man and a woman making a commitment together to create a family unit in which to have and raise children.

A partnership with all the same rights as a marriage 'is' giving equal rights. Just not using the word marriage.

Mary wrote: .That's right, through debate, discussion and serious review law.

That's what I said. And that is what we are having, a debate.

Mary wrote: .But if we all stopped there then women wouldn't have the vote, blacks would still be enslaved, mixed marriages would be outlawed, children would work in factories.

That is a poor argument. And using emotive language to try and strengthen your point is like punching below the belt.

Gay Marriage (in the Uk at least) where there are Civil Partnerships, that give the same rights as a married couple and more rights than a common law couple, in no way can be compared to your emotive list.

Mary wrote: .that they can't marry, or work, or live, or adopt

If your argument was strong enough on it own you would not need to tag on the end of marry,... or work or live or adopt.

Again by doing that you are just using emotive language. Why do you feel the need to add work, live or adopt, when we are discussing marriage?

[Hazel]

cHriS wrote: "I see the word marriage as meaning a man and a woman making a commitment together to create a family unit in which to have and raise children."

so should infertile people, or people who have passed their reproductive age not get married? What about people who decide for other reasons not to have children, should they not allowed to be married? What about the couple I know in which the woman deliberately had herself sterilised in response to the overpopulation of the world? The "its to raise children" argument is moot at best and retarded at worst, when you consider the number of couples who do not or cannot have children together.

[Mary]

Chris, if a partnership is the same thing as a marriage, then why the different language? Because the two are not exactly the same, that is why. There are some rights denied under civil contracts, and all states do not view them equally. Remember, separate but equal was an argument that failed to work for segregation.

Chris, you need to learn the difference between emotive language, and facts, examples and evidence. The social changes I mentioned were real. Those issues of inequality existed. And whether you care to admit it or not, opponents of change used some of the same arguments you now use. Look back into history and you can replace "same-sex marriage" in some of the arguments against it put in "colored people" or "women".
In the past, single parents, biracial couples, and homosexual couples were indeed denied for adoptions. In the past,unmarried couples and homosexual couples have been denied insurance coverage for their partners, the ability to make medical and legal decisions and more. So tell me how that is emotive language?

You judge my arguments, but give no real reasons of your own for denying a group the exact same rights under the law.

I'll ask you this, and let's see if you answer my questions directly, or skirt the issue.

1. If you say there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, then why oppose it, why do you care if same-sex unions are called marriages under the law?

2. How does gay marriage damage you personally?

3. If marriage is between a man and woman for procreation, what happens when they can't conceive or choose not to have children, or their child dies? Should their marriage be annulled? Does that mean married couple should only engage in sex acts that will allow for procreation?

You want to limit same sex marriage, but do not seem to want to put the same restrictions on hetero marriage. That's a double standard.

[Travis]

Dena wrote: "Im an athiest but i didnt recently"jump on the "gay marriage bandwagon". Some people ,like myself have always known that "we hold these truths-that all men are created equal..."."

That last bit is catchy. You should write it down somewhere.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: "But Chris, this issue is not about time management, or which spouse goes to which event. .."

...no it's not Mary you are correct, it's about a dilemma of choice, which a lot of peopl..."

the only dilemma of choice is that people are being denied rights and we can choose to treat them equally or choose to tell them their family doesn't count because somebody cherry picked that verse out of an old book.

and feel free to debate it, but rights are being denied.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: your two kids argument holds no water. We are not talking about missing out on an optional school activity due to over scheduling. We are talking about denying adults the same exact leg..."

rights are being denied here in the US.

and until you can be subjective and leave religion out of a debate on human rights, please stop using the word emotive.
You throw it around like it holds some weight or meaning, when you are just using it as a dodge.

[Travis]

Mary wrote: "Chris, if a partnership is the same thing as a marriage, then why the different language? Because the two are not exactly the same, that is why. There are some rights denied under civil contracts, ..."

and what about gay couple with kids?
If marriage is all about family and procreation, then I know several gay couples that qualify.

Once we tell all those infertile couples their marriages don't count as real ones and downgrade them to civil unions, we'll have plenty of room for all the gay couples with kids.

[Shanna]

Wes wrote: "Shanna wrote: "clarify how you ... equate these [religion and science] as the same? "

It's quite simple, actually. Science starts with the basic tenet that there is an objective reality, an object truth, that can be discovered with our own senses, or with [scientific] extensions to them. Since there is no proof of this beyond believing your own senses, which is horribly self-referential, this is a belief not a fact. It is the belief system by which scientists operate, and is therefor a component of a belief system. Grossly stated, a religion is a belief system. "

So you're making a we all live in the Matrix argument?

[Travis]

Shanna wrote: "Wes wrote: "Shanna wrote: "clarify how you ... equate these [religion and science] as the same? "

It's quite simple, actually. Science starts with the basic tenet that there is an objective reali..."


If we all live in the matrix, can I be Laurence Fishburne?

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Anything will be emotive because we all know what we are talking about denying rights to a group of people for flimsy reasons.
..."

Shanna, you are right of course. That is if you are looking at the issue with blinkered vision.

There is more than one point of view here and to name call because someone does not happen to share your point of view is no better than a kid taking his ball back because the others won't play by his rules.

If there are those that wish to impose their point of view on others, their argument had better better be better that a book says so or I find it icky... of course you can have it that opinion, and you can say it, but it can be questioned, so defend it too... if it's indefensible then reassess it...

Some religious people (not me) have a real dilemma with the gay marriage v their religious belief and because they put their belief first does not make them homophobic.
Then don't make them have a gay marriage, but who are they to stop others? What does it make them?

If both your kids asked you to attend their school concert and play and both were held at the same time on the same day in separate schools, so that you could only attend one, would you go see your favourite kid?

Not really seeing how this fits in here. This is not about one choice preventing another, you have to explain exactly how homosexuals getting married prevents anything and vice versa.

The atheists here don't have that issue and can jump on the 'gay marriage' band wagon to, have a dig at religion.

Certainly their prerogative...
And it just an assertion that they "don't have that issue", you can't know that.

It's not a discussion the atheist is having here it's a lecture as to what they see as right.
Because it is right, and no argument that has been put forward so far has changed that.

Did you not say something about an 8 foot fence a few posts back?


This is not a case of that, so unless you have a dog in this fight, go away. We all have a dog in this fight, human beings are being denied rights for the flimsiest of reasons that don't stand up to a cursory inspection
The arguments so far
"My book says so/it's against my religious beliefs" So what!
"It is problematic" Really, so is "traditional" marriage
"It's for having children" then we need to start fertility testing, and deny post menopausal people marriage.
"It's icky" Don't you do it
"It degrades the validity of marriage as an instition" How?

[Shanna]

Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Wes wrote: "Shanna wrote: "clarify how you ... equate these [religion and science] as the same? "

It's quite simple, actually. Science starts with the basic tenet that there is an ..."

Sure Morpheus

[Travis]

Shanna wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Wes wrote: "Shanna wrote: "clarify how you ... equate these [religion and science] as the same? "

It's quite simple, actually. Science starts with the basic tenet th..."

Cool!
Now I gotta go find my leather overcoat and samurai sword.

[Shanna]

and dark mirror glasses

[Steve]

cHriS wrote: "Steve wrote:the 90% of Americans who support same-sex marriage.."

....and is that exactly 90%, not 89%. And do they all live in the 9 states that have legalized same-sex marriage, representing 15...."
Chris - that is a number I read somewhere else, no idea how accurate it is. Here is one I do know, however - same sex marriage is legal in 100% of Canada. Has been since 2005. Pretty sure the perfectly ordered life of us Canadians has not been destroyed by the decision. It has, in all honesty, had ZERO effect - none of the imagined horrors Robert has been blathering about. Eventually, the USA will pull out of this right-wing religious funk you all seem to be either promoting or suffering from, and will join the rest of us dogma free humans. Try it - you just may find you like it.

[Kilburn]

What an excellent topic. In my upcoming book, ARK, I deal with this very topic. What if the true history of creation, written down for posterity on scrolls later called the Bible but we humans have failed to interpret it correctly. Or, the Bible, published in seven different versions prior to The King James Version was altered to fit a political perspective or point of view. What supersititious, primitive man called angels might very well have been extra-terrestrials. Going up to heaven, a primitive way of saying beamed up to the mother ship. Since primitve man was ignorant of science and technology, ET's would have seemed like Gods to them. One day, in the near future, mankind will come to see that science and religion are one and the same thing, have always been one and the same thing, once we learn to interpret the Bible correctly and not try and slant what was written down to suit our political agendas.
http://kilburnhall.files.wordpress.co...

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "There is more than one point of view here and to name call because someone does not happen to share your point of view is no better than a kid taking his ball back because the others won't play by his rules.

Some religious people (not me) have a real dilemma with the gay marriage v their religious belief and because they put their belief first does not make them homophobic."
It is not Robert's religious beliefs that are being called homophobic, it is the language he has chosen to use that has been cited as homophobic. If he was atheist and said the same things, it would still be homophobic. I am not aware that he has particularly used religion as an explanation for his position, unless his "ideal protocol" is code for religion.

cHriS wrote: "The atheists here don't have that issue and can jump on the 'gay marriage' band wagon to, have a dig at religion."
It is not a band wagon, it is brought up as one of the currently topical examples of where religion attempts to impose itself in a civil rights issue, which most of the atheists here have said is where they will raise objections to religion. I have no objection to anyone having religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are discriminatory, but when the religious belief is used as a reason to try and extend that discrimination to the rest of society, I will speak up.

cHriS wrote: "It's not a discussion the atheist is having here it's a lecture as to what they see as right."
It is a discussion. Everyone has been given an opportunity to put forward their position, and to explain their position. Nobody called Robert homophobic before he had a chance to (obliquely) explain his position. But once he had done so, using homophobic language, he was picked up on it.

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "It is not for any atheist to tell that person they are wrong to have that belief or wrong to put that belief before gay marriage. "
Nobody is saying that, we are saying it is wrong for that belief to be used to deny a civil right. You, Robert and whoever can have that belief until the cows come home. I don't care if your beliefs are right or wrong, but I object to them being used to attempt to justify discrimination.

cHriS wrote: "The rules in a democracy are not about what is right and what is wrong, they are about what the majority think is right."
Bullshit. That's how slavery was justified. Whether it was legal or not, it has always been morally objectionable.

cHriS wrote: "I have not said that, you have. That is the dilemma. You go to one kids school, the other kid does the play without their mother watching. "
As with Robert's "examples" this has no bearing on the issue of same-sex marriage.

[cerebus]

Wes wrote: "It's quite simple, actually. Science starts with the basic tenet that there is an objective reality, an object truth, that can be discovered with our own senses, or with [scientific] extensions to them. Since there is no proof of this beyond believing your own senses, which is horribly self-referential, this is a belief not a fact. It is the belief system by which scientists operate, and is therefor a component of a belief system. Grossly stated, a religion is a belief system. "
Science is happy to say "I do not know" when it doesn't know. It relies on testable, repeatable evidence. It does not rely on faith. It is not a religion.

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: your two kids argument holds no water. We are not talking about missing out on an optional school activity due to over scheduling. We are talking about denying adults the same exact leg..."

cHriS wrote: "I see the word marriage as meaning a man and a woman making a commitment together to create a family unit in which to have and raise children."
Your own definition. How about we go back to the biblical definitions. Polygamy. Rape victims forced to marry their attackers. Why rule those out now?

cHriS wrote: "That is a poor argument. And using emotive language to try and strengthen your point is like punching below the belt."
As is constant bleating of "emotive language!" at every point you disagree with. It is a meaningless expression, and hasn't gained with your ceaseless repetition.

cHriS wrote: "Again by doing that you are just using emotive language. Why do you feel the need to add work, live or adopt, when we are discussing marriage?"
Nope, still doesn't mean anything.

[cerebus]

Mary wrote: "Chris, if a partnership is the same thing as a marriage, then why the different language? Because the two are not exactly the same, that is why. There are some rights denied under civil contracts, ..."
Good luck with those questions Mary....

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "So you're making a we all live in the Matrix argument? "
I suspect Wes is a Solipsist....
Btw, not content with being in an atheist minority, I'm possibly one of the few people I've come across who hated that boring, trite, predictable movie :)

[Shanna]

cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "So you're making a we all live in the Matrix argument? "
I suspect Wes is a Solipsist....
Btw, not content with being in an atheist minority, I'm possibly one of the few people I've ..."

His argument certainly bends in that direction.

[Michael]

Shanna wrote: " 'It degrades the validity of marriage as an institution" How?"

It doesn't degrade a damn thing. That whole position, as you obviously agree, continues after all this debate to still be bollocks.

Meanwhile, Chris wrote: "I see the word marriage as meaning a man and a woman making a commitment together to create a family unit in which to have and raise children."

Good for you, that's your unquestionable right, but you're increasingly old school and on to a bit of a loser if you want that view to stick. Perhaps you imagine that a world of gay weddings will render it all a bit of a cross between "Will and Grace" and one of Elton John's parties, or perhaps you hadn't got that far or extravagant in your thinking. Either way, I can't see a problem with it, and if the only argument is that it breaks tradition then that's puny and lazy thinking.

Of course, I admit it's possible my viewpoint is mildly tainted by my inclination to support any behaviour that I consider acceptable AND which simultaneously opposes reactionary horseshit.

[cerebus]

Michael, at this rate we'll end up liking each other : D

[cHriS]

Michael wrote: Good for you, that's your unquestionable right, but you're increasingly old school and on to a bit of a loser if you want that view to stick"

....and that is the strength of your argument, I bet those is favour of gay marriage can't wait to have you march with them.

[cHriS]

Dena wrote: Where do u get off thinking that your say has more power.Whoever tought u this did u a disservice.
"

..... maybe I could get my money back :)

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote:we are saying it is wrong for that belief to be used to deny a civil right. ?

Show me where a civil right is being denied.

cerebus wrote:Bullshit. That's how slavery was justified. Whether it was legal or not, it has always been morally objectionable.

Again you are over reacting without understanding what I said. Nothing to do with slavery.

cerebus wrote:this has no bearing on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Yes it does, as far a it creates a dilemma, a catch 22 for some people. Maybe not you and may be you don't think it should for other people....but it does.

cerebus wrote:it is brought up as one of the currently topical examples of where religion attempts to impose itself in a civil rights issue

That is your view, but it is not an exclusive view, there are other views. And you may not like the fact that religion exists or that people follow it, but they do, that's life and it has to be taken into consideration.

cerebus wrote:....but when the religious belief is used as a reason to try and extend that discrimination to the rest of society, I will speak up.

Maybe it's a case of you trying to look over Shanna's 8 foot fence.

[cHriS]

Steve wrote: that is a number I read somewhere else, no idea how accurate it is...."

....no worries, it happens.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote:we are saying it is wrong for that belief to be used to deny a civil right. ?

Show me where a civil right is being denied.

cerebus wrote:Bullshit. That's how slavery was justified. ..."

So we have to consider religion, but you don't have to consider that people are being denied a right?

Why do we have to consider religion? Why does it deserve to be part of the equation?

[Mary]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote:we are saying it is wrong for that belief to be used to deny a civil right. ?

Show me where a civil right is being denied.


Okay CHris You don't answer my questions, but I'll answer yours.Here ya go, rights that married couples have that domestic partnerships do not. Varies by state but here they are.

-The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

-The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

-The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

-The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

-The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

-Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

-The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

-The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job


Okay Chris, now maybe you'll answer my questions....

[Maria]

Well, technically all those things mentioned are not really "civil rights".

The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin.

The things mentioned above refer to legislation made particularly for married couples, however the term "married" is defined at any given time. If the only type of "marriage" recognized by the particular state is between a man and a woman, then that's all that's covered by these "rights" you mention.

It would only be a civil rights violation if, AFTER the legal marriage of two gay people was recognized by the state, THEN the state tried to not have it apply in their case, particularly because it is a gay marriage.

It would be a civil rights violation if they tried to deny any of these things to a black married couple, or a handicapped married couple, etc, i.e. a couple whose marriage was legally recognized by the state, but yet was still being denied these things.

The "marriage" would have to be legally recognized in the state before any of these rights could be exercised.

These rights are non-discriminately applied to all "legally" married couples. "Legally" is the key word. If the marriage is not recognied as "legal" then it's moot.

So, should the criteria be changed so that same-sex marriages are considered "legal"? Sure, why not?

But if your state doesn't recognize it, you can't say that a "civil right" is being denied you. It wouldn't apply in your case, no more than it would apply in the case of a man and a woman who have been living together as a couple for many years but never got "legally" married.

[Mary]

Maria wrote: "Well, technically all those things mentioned are not really "civil rights".

The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, ha..."


I disagree, as do many, many others
The case is made that the discrimination is based on sex. You know, as in "same sex marriage". The discrimination is based on the fact that both parties are the same sex. Or else why are they being denied the same rights?

Again I ask, if the rights are the same for traditional marriage and same sex unions, then why the argument? Why the need for a law declaring them the same? That's right, because they are not the same.

None of our current civil rights laws were passed easily or without some strong opposition from people who wanted to preserve "tradition". Protests, boycotts and rallies along with police action and even some violence against civil rights activists are what created those civil rights laws. So now, hopefully, we can add "marriage" to that list of civil rights.

That is what same sex marriage proponents hope to achieve.
The end of the splitting hairs on words like "marriage", an end to unequal protection under the law.
That is what the debate is about. A clear statement of law saying a marriage is an agreement by two people and has protection and responsibilities under the law.
Make sense?

[Maria]

I agree that it's splitting hairs, but that's what the legal system does, unfortunately.

They are not being denied civil rights on the basis of sex. That would mean individually being denied the right to do something based on whether you are a man or a woman. That is not the case here, the "right" is being denied because they are not considered "legally married". Doesn't matter if it's two women or two men.

The rights are the same for traditional man/woman marriages and for same sex marriages IN THE STATES THAT CONSIDER SAME SEX MARRIAGES LEGAL.

Does the criteria/definition of "marriage" need to be changed? Yes. But are legally married people being denied the things legislated for legally married people to be able to do? Not in this case.

What they are being denied is the right to be considered "legally married" - which is not really fair, but unfortunately NOT a civil right.

What if two brothers wanted to get married? Or two sisters? Or a 70 year old man to his 20 year old daughter? Or two 12 year olds, of any sex? What if I want to marry a really smart male gorilla?

I'm saying this in a facetious way, just to illustrate that not just any two people/beings can have a ceremony performed and be considered legally married in the eyes of the law.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: If there are those that wish to impose their point of view on others..."

....those who want to alter the meaning of marriage?

Shanna wrote: icky why not just say what you mean?

Shanna wrote: how homosexuals getting married prevents anything and vice versa.

In the UK and I can only refer to the UK, family values are at an all time low. This has been acknowledge by the Prime Minster and other politicians as well as others of standing in the country.

It goes back to the days when political correctness was ripe. We had gay couples who wanted equal rights, (quite rightly) and we had more couples living together who did not get the same rights as married couples. We also had married couples. In a nutshell the way the Tony Blair government went about creating a more equal society was by devaluing marriage, rather than the other way round.

This devaluing has had a knock on effect on society, which would take more time than I have to go into details but is easy enough to Google.

We in the UK can either try and get marriage and family values back to how it was 20 plus years ago or we can carry on hacking away at it until it is worthless. If you do not live in the UK then maybe you are not aware of what I am talking about.

Marriage 'has' to be about the children who are our future, and not about couples living together.

If a couple in the Uk want to live together fine, if they want to live together and have children then society has a problem. No commitment. That's fine until the honeymoon period wears off.

You can't buy a car or a house, with out some sort of commitment so why should you have a child.

Maybe things are rosy in Oz, but they are not over here.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/3827...

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: if a partnership is the same thing as a marriage, then why the different language? Because the two are not exactly the same, that is why. There are some rights denied under civil contracts, and all states do not view them equally. Remember, separate but equal was an argument that failed to work for segregation.
."

Mary it is not the same as segregation at all and you know that.

I can only speak about the Uk and civil partnership does have the same rights, and more than a co habiting couple have.

It is also true that just because a country will allow gay marriage, it does not follow that the gay couple HAVE the same rights.

[Maria]

Children are our future, whether their parents are legally married or not.

Just because a couple is a legally married man and woman does not guarantee them a well adjusted child, ready to take on the future of our world.

Also, just because a couple is not legally married does not mean that they have not made some type of commitment to one another.

If they want to be able to do all those legal things mentioned by Mary that are specifically reserved for legally married couples, then it would be the smart thing to do to actually get legally married. If you are a gay couple, that might mean moving to a state that recognizes your union.

It's been said before, obviously not sinking in for Chris, but having children is not the only reason people get married. It's probably a good idea to get married if you do plan to have children - for the legal reasons stated previously.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: Here ya go, rights that married couples have that domestic partnerships do not. Varies by state but here they are..."

We are all looking at things from the place we live. I can only speak from a UK point of view where civil partnerships DO have the same rights.

It sounds like your domestic partnerships are similar to our co habiting couples ( or common law husband/wife) they have not rights. BUT civil partnerships in the UK do.