Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[BigBallinStalin]

Seeing that you have failed to refute my argument, we can safely establish that there is at least one absolute right. And that right is "the negative right to not be killed via genocide." Premio, do you agree that this absolute right exists, is valid, and sound?

[premio53]

Seeing that you have failed to refute my argument, we can safely establish that there is at least one absolute right. And that right is "the negative right to not be killed via genocide." Premio, do you agree that this absolute right exists, is valid, and sound?

Do you believe homosexuals have the right to change the definition of marriage in the name of "negative rights"? Are there any moral absolutes that transcend all societies? Why are your moral standards superior to all others? Last but not least. Are you tolerant of traditional Christian views?

[BigBallinStalin]

I still don't understand the following with the issue on gay marriage:


(1) No religion has the legitimate right to define what a marriage is in the US. No single religion enjoys that jurisdiction. So, why do people continue to think that their own particular religion somehow has the right to define what a marriage is over an entire country? (that screams of theocracy to me).

Okay, let's clear up a confusion. There's "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" (a.k.a. civil union). I'm talking about legal marriage and religious marriages, which differ across religions (which further compounds the problem of #1). A religion can define marriage and regulate marriage, but only within in its own jurisdictions (churches, but not across the entire country), hence a "religious marriage."

(2) Suppose the US legalizes gay marriage and requires people to recognize it as a legitimate marriage (in regard to contract laws, etc.). However, the US does not force religious organizations to oversee the marriage of gay couples because those organizations are free to deny their services (e.g. no gays in the Boy Scouts case). If (2) is true, then why would people oppose gay marriage?

I would be more than willing to answer these questions even though my general vague opposition to same gender marriage (because let's be honest, the notion that marriage is a sex licence is nonsense and if you allow two people to marry it doesn't mean that they must have sex; senior citizen octogenarians marry all the time so why can't two straight men marry each other) is mostly because I do not want gay men to fall victim to divorce lawyers. But since the Shakespeare option isn't currently viable, limiting their access to them is the only viable solution, at the moment.

I'll start off with the notion that the whole concept of civil marriage is a farce and ought to be thrown out as an unconstitutional infringement on someone's rights, depending on the situation. The state really should not have anything to do with marriage whatsoever and there should never be any legal benefit that can only be applied to such a condition. (Note that even a "religious" marriage has a "civil" component to it. I'm opposed to the civil component to any marriage ... but I know that's not going to happen in any reasonable future.)

(1) Most religions would insist that marriage is specifically a religious institution. Whether it is a "religious" or "societal" institution could make an interesting debate but from a civil perspective the state only became involved because of monarchies and the absurd notion of passing lines of succession only along "legitimate" offspring. Ironically it was a King who started the whole "divorce" thing into the institution but it's not until the 20th century where real fiscal issues and custody battles enter the divorce proceedings.

The current civil law on marriage reflects the current state of Protestant Christianity. We almost fought a war to fight against those who had a different view, but eventually the Mormons dropped polygamy from their official doctrine. But even then, the general religious notions has always viewed marriage as a institute for procreation (now before you raise a technical nit pick, Christianity has always looked to the examples of the old testament where women who probably had their change of life decades ago got pregnant with important people ... that's why old folks can marry).

So we get to the notion of the word "marriage." This means something to these churches and they don't like their definitions messed with.

(2) Totally incorrect. Under the law, a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. You can't discriminate one from another. You can't discriminate gay marriage anymore than you can interracial marriage.

All of the following has already been determined in a court of law.

1. If you rent you hall out to straight weddings you must rent your hall out to gay weddings.
2. If you bake cakes for straight weddings you must bake them for gay weddings.
3. If you are an adoption agency that gives children to straight married couples you must give children to gay married couples as well, even if it goes against what you believe a family should be.

The effect is that religious people who do not believe gay marriage is legitimate must effectively do nothing whatsoever regarding straight couples or be forced to do the same for gay couples. Thus most religions are getting out of the adoption business or no longer rent out their facilities to anyone.

Marriage is a contract--whether it is formal or informal, it doesn't matter. It is an agreement which delineates obligations from both parties. If you disagree, then you have an incorrect definition of contract. It can be conducted by a priest, some friend, or a homeless person, but a separate contract--which is essentially the same thing--must be approved by a government judge.

Therefore, an organization's definition of "marriage" is completely irrelevant to the issue of gay 'marriage'. They don't even own that word, so we can reject that argument of yours too. The issue is about the government recognizing the 'marriage' status of a homosexual couple. So, on this issue, where exactly do you stand?


(2) would be settled by the courts. The Boy Scouts got their right to discriminate--and on shaky grounds. I'm fairly certain the judges would rule in those religious organizations' favor. If the Amish can be exempt from social security taxes and other welfare taxes--on religious grounds, then I'm sure certain religious organizations can exercise their right to choose which patronage may hold marriage ceremonies at their establishment.

*regarding your list, please cite some of the cases because your word isn't enough here. And where does the Supreme Court stand on this issue?

[BigBallinStalin]

Seeing that you have failed to refute my argument, we can safely establish that there is at least one absolute right. And that right is "the negative right to not be killed via genocide." Premio, do you agree that this absolute right exists, is valid, and sound?

Do you believe homosexuals have the right to change the definition of marriage in the name of "negative rights"? Are there any moral absolutes that transcend all societies? Why are your moral standards superior to all others? Last but not least. Are you tolerant of traditional Christian views?

Hey, premio, answer the question, then I can answer yours. That's how this exchange will work.

If you don't want to, then why? Are you afraid of running yourself into a contradictory stance? If so, you shouldn't be. Exercising logic makes you a better human being.

RE: some of your questions, if you care to read my posts, then you wouldn't need to ask some of those questions.

[premio53]

I still don't understand the following with the issue on gay marriage:


(1) No religion has the legitimate right to define what a marriage is in the US. No single religion enjoys that jurisdiction. So, why do people continue to think that their own particular religion somehow has the right to define what a marriage is over an entire country? (that screams of theocracy to me).

Okay, let's clear up a confusion. There's "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" (a.k.a. civil union). I'm talking about legal marriage and religious marriages, which differ across religions (which further compounds the problem of #1). A religion can define marriage and regulate marriage, but only within in its own jurisdictions (churches, but not across the entire country), hence a "religious marriage."

(2) Suppose the US legalizes gay marriage and requires people to recognize it as a legitimate marriage (in regard to contract laws, etc.). However, the US does not force religious organizations to oversee the marriage of gay couples because those organizations are free to deny their services (e.g. no gays in the Boy Scouts case). If (2) is true, then why would people oppose gay marriage?

I would be more than willing to answer these questions even though my general vague opposition to same gender marriage (because let's be honest, the notion that marriage is a sex licence is nonsense and if you allow two people to marry it doesn't mean that they must have sex; senior citizen octogenarians marry all the time so why can't two straight men marry each other) is mostly because I do not want gay men to fall victim to divorce lawyers. But since the Shakespeare option isn't currently viable, limiting their access to them is the only viable solution, at the moment.

I'll start off with the notion that the whole concept of civil marriage is a farce and ought to be thrown out as an unconstitutional infringement on someone's rights, depending on the situation. The state really should not have anything to do with marriage whatsoever and there should never be any legal benefit that can only be applied to such a condition. (Note that even a "religious" marriage has a "civil" component to it. I'm opposed to the civil component to any marriage ... but I know that's not going to happen in any reasonable future.)

(1) Most religions would insist that marriage is specifically a religious institution. Whether it is a "religious" or "societal" institution could make an interesting debate but from a civil perspective the state only became involved because of monarchies and the absurd notion of passing lines of succession only along "legitimate" offspring. Ironically it was a King who started the whole "divorce" thing into the institution but it's not until the 20th century where real fiscal issues and custody battles enter the divorce proceedings.

The current civil law on marriage reflects the current state of Protestant Christianity. We almost fought a war to fight against those who had a different view, but eventually the Mormons dropped polygamy from their official doctrine. But even then, the general religious notions has always viewed marriage as a institute for procreation (now before you raise a technical nit pick, Christianity has always looked to the examples of the old testament where women who probably had their change of life decades ago got pregnant with important people ... that's why old folks can marry).

So we get to the notion of the word "marriage." This means something to these churches and they don't like their definitions messed with.

(2) Totally incorrect. Under the law, a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. You can't discriminate one from another. You can't discriminate gay marriage anymore than you can interracial marriage.

All of the following has already been determined in a court of law.

1. If you rent you hall out to straight weddings you must rent your hall out to gay weddings.
2. If you bake cakes for straight weddings you must bake them for gay weddings.
3. If you are an adoption agency that gives children to straight married couples you must give children to gay married couples as well, even if it goes against what you believe a family should be.

The effect is that religious people who do not believe gay marriage is legitimate must effectively do nothing whatsoever regarding straight couples or be forced to do the same for gay couples. Thus most religions are getting out of the adoption business or no longer rent out their facilities to anyone.

Marriage is a contract--whether it is formal or informal, it doesn't matter. It is an agreement which delineates obligations from both parties. If you disagree, then you have an incorrect definition of contract. It can be conducted by a priest, some friend, or a homeless person, but a separate contract--which is essentially the same thing--must be approved by a government judge.

Therefore, an organization's definition of "marriage" is completely irrelevant to the issue of gay 'marriage'. They don't even own that word, so we can reject that argument of yours too. The issue is about the government recognizing the 'marriage' status of a homosexual couple. So, on this issue, where exactly do you stand?


(2) would be settled by the courts. The Boy Scouts got their right to discriminate--and on shaky grounds. I'm fairly certain the judges would rule in those religious organizations' favor. If the Amish can be exempt from social security taxes and other welfare taxes--on religious grounds, then I'm sure certain religious organizations can exercise their right to choose which patronage may hold marriage ceremonies at their establishment.

*regarding your list, please cite some of the cases because your word isn't enough here. And where does the Supreme Court stand on this issue?

The one main question I have is are you tolerant of traditional Christian views?

[BigBallinStalin]

Premio, I'd love to answer that question, but you have to reciprocate by answering my question. Otherwise, we're not having a conversation. You're just substituting reason for yelling at people.

[premio53]

Premio, I'd love to answer that question, but you have to reciprocate by answering my question. Otherwise, we're not having a conversation. You're just substituting reason for yelling at people.

I'll answer for you. You hold disdain for traditional Christian values.

big·ot
[big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED

[BigBallinStalin]

Premio, I'd love to answer that question, but you have to reciprocate by answering my question. Otherwise, we're not having a conversation. You're just substituting reason for yelling at people.

I'll answer for you. You hold disdain for traditional Christian values.

big·ot
[big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED

Can you form that into a coherent argument?

If so, you'll have to ask yourself:
(a) Is it valid?
(b) are all the propositions sound?

You'll definitely find that the soundness of one of them is unknown; therefore, your implied conclusion, "BBS is a bigot," cannot be confirmed.

IN YOUR FACE!

So, since you have no argument so far, you can either admit that you accept that there are absolute right(s), or we can assume that you believe that genocide is morally acceptable.

1. If premio believes that genocide is morally acceptable,
2. then should we take his positions on moral issues seriously?

[Metsfanmax]

Premio, I'd love to answer that question, but you have to reciprocate by answering my question. Otherwise, we're not having a conversation. You're just substituting reason for yelling at people.

I'll answer for you. You hold disdain for traditional Christian values.

big·ot
[big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED

Having disdain for Christian values does not make one a bigot by that definition, unless Christian values constitute the entirety of beliefs other than what BBS believes.

[Frigidus]

Premio, I'd love to answer that question, but you have to reciprocate by answering my question. Otherwise, we're not having a conversation. You're just substituting reason for yelling at people.

I'll answer for you. You hold disdain for traditional Christian values.

big·ot
[big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED

I would question the way in which you interpret "utterly intolerant". In what way has BBS demonstrated himself to be utterly intolerant of (the incredibly nebulous term) "Christian values"?

[tzor]

Marriage is a contract--whether it is formal or informal, it doesn't matter. It is an agreement which delineates obligations from both parties. If you disagree, then you have an incorrect definition of contract. It can be conducted by a priest, some friend, or a homeless person, but a separate contract--which is essentially the same thing--must be approved by a government judge.

In one sense marriage is a "contract." But it is an odd "one size fits all" contract, molded and designed by the basic tenants of Protestant Christianity. If indeed marriage is a contract, then it needs to be flexible enough to be adapted into this model. Neither should it be an "all or nothing" contract either. What if I want to give hospital visitation rights to someone, for example. Do I really have to make a full "this contract is valid until one of your dies or you pay a lawyer through the nose" contract to do so?

Once you remove the sacramental nature of Marriage, then the structure and format is both arbitrary and petty. Why anyone would insist on that same structure is beyond me.

[tzor]

(2) would be settled by the courts. The Boy Scouts got their right to discriminate--and on shaky grounds. I'm fairly certain the judges would rule in those religious organizations' favor.

But the Boy Scouts is a "closed" or "private" organization. That's a whole different situation than a business open to the "public." Should a church hall only allow its members to rent the hall for marriages they could use the same argument, but once they open their hall to the "public" they can't discriminate. The courts have been pretty clear on this.

*regarding your list, please cite some of the cases because your word isn't enough here. And where does the Supreme Court stand on this issue?

If I get some time I will Google up a list. My damn memory of news articles doesn't come with url links.

[BigBallinStalin]

Marriage is a contract--whether it is formal or informal, it doesn't matter. It is an agreement which delineates obligations from both parties. If you disagree, then you have an incorrect definition of contract. It can be conducted by a priest, some friend, or a homeless person, but a separate contract--which is essentially the same thing--must be approved by a government judge.

In one sense marriage is a "contract." But it is an odd "one size fits all" contract, molded and designed by the basic tenants of Protestant Christianity. If indeed marriage is a contract, then it needs to be flexible enough to be adapted into this model. Neither should it be an "all or nothing" contract either. What if I want to give hospital visitation rights to someone, for example. Do I really have to make a full "this contract is valid until one of your dies or you pay a lawyer through the nose" contract to do so?

Once you remove the sacramental nature of Marriage, then the structure and format is both arbitrary and petty. Why anyone would insist on that same structure is beyond me.

Tzor, contracts need not be "one size fits all" nor "all or nothing." Contracts can be flexible. There's informal rules at play, and an implicit understanding underlies the contract between each party. Sometimes, that implicit understanding of the informal rules is mismatched, which can result in a lack of coordination (e.g. your hospital example). Not everything was codified (explicitly written) in the contract, so these things happen. Nevertheless, marriage is still a contract.

We need to understanding a problem about our language:

There is nothing sacramental about the contract: marriage in general; however, there is something special about your particular marriage within the institution of Protestant Christianity. But there are other particular marriages in all other religions and non-religions.

No religion holds a monopoly on marriage in general.
No religion exercises full discretion over all forms of marriage, thus "marriage in general."
A religious institution is not even necessary to oversee a marriage in general--however, of course, a particular religious institution does have discretion over its particular marriage ceremonies.

You speak of 'marriage' in a particular sense, but your approach is not applicable to the entire debate about marriage, in general.

This is the mismatch in language which has clouded this debate for years. Are we on the same page so far?

[BigBallinStalin]

(2) would be settled by the courts. The Boy Scouts got their right to discriminate--and on shaky grounds. I'm fairly certain the judges would rule in those religious organizations' favor.

But the Boy Scouts is a "closed" or "private" organization. That's a whole different situation than a business open to the "public." Should a church hall only allow its members to rent the hall for marriages they could use the same argument, but once they open their hall to the "public" they can't discriminate. The courts have been pretty clear on this.

I completely disagree because a Church is still a private organization. Although it may be open to the public, it does not mean that it loses its private property rights. McDonalds is just as "open to the public" as a Church is---(actually, McDonald's is probably more open to the public than a church, but I digress). It's the same for the Boy Scouts, for the Mall, and for McDonald's. This is a private property rights issue, and the courts have been clear on this--they ruled in the favor of the Boy Scouts, just as they would for those churches.

*regarding your list, please cite some of the cases because your word isn't enough here. And where does the Supreme Court stand on this issue?

If I get some time I will Google up a list. My damn memory of news articles doesn't come with url links.

Boy Scouts FTW, tzor.

[GeneralRisk]

America's founding fathers upheld the role of the "Traditional Family" as the "foundation of national morality." Another mans opinion

[tzor]

Tzor, contracts need not be "one size fits all" nor "all or nothing." Contracts can be flexible. There's informal rules at play, and an implicit understanding underlies the contract between each party. Sometimes, that implicit understanding of the informal rules is mismatched, which can result in a lack of coordination (e.g. your hospital example). Not everything was codified (explicitly written) in the contract, so these things happen. Nevertheless, marriage is still a contract.

Contracts can be flexible, but the current marriage law as a "contract" is not. You can only engage in one specific form of contract in a marriage contract.

There is nothing sacramental about the contract: marriage in general; however, there is something special about your particular marriage within the institution of Protestant Christianity. But there are other particular marriages in all other religions and non-religions.

Yes, we probably need to define terms, "sacramental" means "sacred" or ... well "religious." The contract is not in and of itself "sacramental" but it is both derived from and takes is name from a religious rite.

Consider this, what other contract does a judge announce "I now declare this contract binding" as is done in civil ceremony of matrimony?

No religion holds a monopoly on marriage in general.

I never said that. What I said was that if your religion holds a different notion to marriage than the Protestant Christian model codified into law then you are out of luck.

This is not a mismatch in language; this is a civil model in contract based and named off of a religious model. You can't claim to change the one model, (while insisting on the name) without impacting the other. You have to sever both models completely from each other; you need to take the Gordian knot to the sword.

[tzor]

*regarding your list, please cite some of the cases because your word isn't enough here. And where does the Supreme Court stand on this issue?

If I get some time I will Google up a list. My damn memory of news articles doesn't come with url links.

Catholic Adoption Agency Threatens to Leave Colorado If Civil Unions Passes

After Illinois passed its civil unions law, the state ended its contract with Catholic Charities over their open discrimination against same-sex couples. The Catholic Church had also sought an exemption from the law in that state and failed.

Kansas law would force churches to host same-sex ‘weddings,’ receptions

A proposed ordinance in one of the nation’s most conservative states would force churches to rent their property out for same-sex “weddings” and receptions. It would also force any public venue to allow people to use showers, restrooms, and locker-rooms based on their “gender identity,” rather than their “sex at birth.”

The city council of Hutchinson, Kansas, is considering enacting a new statute adding sexual orientation and sexual identity to the city’s non-discrimination policy in all public accommodations. The measure would specifically include churches that rent their property to the public.

“If a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party,” such as a same-sex ceremony or reception, according to a city FAQ about the ordinance. If the church only rents the building to their parishioners, they can continue to do so.”

[BigBallinStalin]

Tzor, contracts need not be "one size fits all" nor "all or nothing." Contracts can be flexible. There's informal rules at play, and an implicit understanding underlies the contract between each party. Sometimes, that implicit understanding of the informal rules is mismatched, which can result in a lack of coordination (e.g. your hospital example). Not everything was codified (explicitly written) in the contract, so these things happen. Nevertheless, marriage is still a contract.

Contracts can be flexible, but the current marriage law as a "contract" is not. You can only engage in one specific form of contract in a marriage contract.

There is nothing sacramental about the contract: marriage in general; however, there is something special about your particular marriage within the institution of Protestant Christianity. But there are other particular marriages in all other religions and non-religions.

Yes, we probably need to define terms, "sacramental" means "sacred" or ... well "religious." The contract is not in and of itself "sacramental" but it is both derived from and takes is name from a religious rite.

Consider this, what other contract does a judge announce "I now declare this contract binding" as is done in civil ceremony of matrimony?

No religion holds a monopoly on marriage in general.

I never said that. What I said was that if your religion holds a different notion to marriage than the Protestant Christian model codified into law then you are out of luck.

This is not a mismatch in language; this is a civil model in contract based and named off of a religious model. You can't claim to change the one model, (while insisting on the name) without impacting the other. You have to sever both models completely from each other; you need to take the Gordian knot to the sword.

Okay. If the policy of the federal government is to force all religions to marry any gay couple, then you might have a case.

Since that isn't the case, then I don't see the relevance of your position here.

[BigBallinStalin]

*regarding your list, please cite some of the cases because your word isn't enough here. And where does the Supreme Court stand on this issue?

If I get some time I will Google up a list. My damn memory of news articles doesn't come with url links.

Catholic Adoption Agency Threatens to Leave Colorado If Civil Unions Passes

After Illinois passed its civil unions law, the state ended its contract with Catholic Charities over their open discrimination against same-sex couples. The Catholic Church had also sought an exemption from the law in that state and failed.

Aw. That's too bad. But it seems that Catholic Charities and this issue is not just about marriage. If so, Catholic Charities is a different matter since it provides different services. Anyway, I applaud the State of Illinois' decision to not subsidize discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It's as honorable as not subsidizing discrimination based on skin color.

Anyway, if they wish to uphold their right to discrimination, then they should appeal to the federal courts.

Kansas law would force churches to host same-sex ‘weddings,’ receptions

A proposed ordinance in one of the nation’s most conservative states would force churches to rent their property out for same-sex “weddings” and receptions. It would also force any public venue to allow people to use showers, restrooms, and locker-rooms based on their “gender identity,” rather than their “sex at birth.”

The city council of Hutchinson, Kansas, is considering enacting a new statute adding sexual orientation and sexual identity to the city’s non-discrimination policy in all public accommodations. The measure would specifically include churches that rent their property to the public.

“If a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party,” such as a same-sex ceremony or reception, according to a city FAQ about the ordinance. If the church only rents the building to their parishioners, they can continue to do so.”

"proposed ordinance"
"considering enacting"

Has anything of that actually happened?

[tzor]

Aw. That's too bad. But it seems that Catholic Charities and this issue is not just about marriage. If so, Catholic Charities is a different matter since it provides different services. Anyway, I applaud the State of Illinois' decision to not subsidize discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It's as honorable as not subsidizing discrimination based on skin color.

But the point is that it is OK to not give a child up to two unmarried people for adoption, but if they have a valid marriage licence you must treat them like any other couple with a marriage license. Thus anyone who thinks that a child deserves at least one representation of each of the two genders in order to grow up healthy must throw that notion out the window. Such people would, naturally, oppose Gay Marriage for this exact reason. So, yes, it is about "marriage."

[Symmetry]

Aw. That's too bad. But it seems that Catholic Charities and this issue is not just about marriage. If so, Catholic Charities is a different matter since it provides different services. Anyway, I applaud the State of Illinois' decision to not subsidize discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It's as honorable as not subsidizing discrimination based on skin color.

But the point is that it is OK to not give a child up to two unmarried people for adoption, but if they have a valid marriage licence you must treat them like any other couple with a marriage license. Thus anyone who thinks that a child deserves at least one representation of each of the two genders in order to grow up healthy must throw that notion out the window. Such people would, naturally, oppose Gay Marriage for this exact reason. So, yes, it is about "marriage."

Why do you think there are only two genders?

[tzor]

Has anything of that actually happened?

Lesbian Pair Wins Ruling Over Refusal of Ceremony

A lesbian couple from New Jersey who were barred from holding a civil union ceremony last year at a beachfront pavilion owned by a church group won a legal victory on Monday.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled that the refusal of the church group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns a square mile of beachfront property in Ocean Grove, near Asbury Park, to rent the spot to the couple violated the public accommodation provisions of the state’s Law Against Discrimination.

While the ruling decisively favors the couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, it does not end the case, which has become a major symbol in the gay rights battle in New Jersey and beyond.

[spurgistan]

Aw. That's too bad. But it seems that Catholic Charities and this issue is not just about marriage. If so, Catholic Charities is a different matter since it provides different services. Anyway, I applaud the State of Illinois' decision to not subsidize discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It's as honorable as not subsidizing discrimination based on skin color.

But the point is that it is OK to not give a child up to two unmarried people for adoption, but if they have a valid marriage licence you must treat them like any other couple with a marriage license. Thus anyone who thinks that a child deserves at least one representation of each of the two genders in order to grow up healthy must throw that notion out the window. Such people would, naturally, oppose Gay Marriage for this exact reason. So, yes, it is about "marriage."

But the point is it is OK to not give an unqualified person a plane, but if they have a pilot's license you must treat them like any other pilot. Thus anyone who thinks that passengers on a plane deserves a white pilot must throw that notion out the window. Such people would, naturally, oppose Black Pilots for this exact reason. So, yes, it is about "Justice."

[BigBallinStalin]

Aw. That's too bad. But it seems that Catholic Charities and this issue is not just about marriage. If so, Catholic Charities is a different matter since it provides different services. Anyway, I applaud the State of Illinois' decision to not subsidize discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It's as honorable as not subsidizing discrimination based on skin color.

But the point is that it is OK to not give a child up to two unmarried people for adoption, but if they have a valid marriage licence you must treat them like any other couple with a marriage license. Thus anyone who thinks that a child deserves at least one representation of each of the two genders in order to grow up healthy must throw that notion out the window. Such people would, naturally, oppose Gay Marriage for this exact reason. So, yes, it is about "marriage."

The underlined does not follow. Single-parent child rearing is not precluded because homosexual couples can participate in the institution of marriage, properly understood. The "notion" isn't thrown out of the window because there are laws which still uphold a single parent's "representation" of their child... Gay marriage laws don't limit a single-parent's discretion over his or her own child.

So, aside from your implicit support of denying services (beyond marriage) to couples on the basis of discriminating against sexual preferences, what do you have to bring to this table? We've pretty much addressed everything else in your stance, so now it's up to you to decide if (1) you support a homosexual couple's right to engage in voluntary contracts between themselves, or (2) you reject it on... shaky grounds of "what if's" and "I support discrimination against sexual preference."

[PLAYER57832]

Premio, I'd love to answer that question, but you have to reciprocate by answering my question. Otherwise, we're not having a conversation. You're just substituting reason for yelling at people.

I'll answer for you. You hold disdain for traditional Christian values.

big·ot
[big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED

I would question the way in which you interpret "utterly intolerant". In what way has BBS demonstrated himself to be utterly intolerant of (the incredibly nebulous term) "Christian values"?

Also, who gives you the right to decide that those ARE Christian values. A LOT of believing and studied Christians happen to believe that your view is the bigoted one, particularly when you go beyond that narrow " I don't want my kids or friends to be homosexual" to "I have the right to place limits on their actions in a secular world".