Catholic Archbishop attacks gay marriage as undemocratic

[thegreekdog]

I have trouble understanding what a libertarian viewpoint is, as it basically seems to be a nebulous political philosophy at best, and at worst, seems to be an off-shoot of the Republican party in the US in these forums.

I can help you understand the libertarian viewpoint easily.

Go to your web browser.
Type in the web address of your preferred search engine (e.g. http://www.google.com).
Type in the search area "Libertarian Party"
You will be provided with various links, one of which should be the link to the Libertarian Party website. Click that link.
Read.

I get the feeling that you take your distinctly fringe view of marriage (and I'm being very generous in describing it as fringe) only in to discussions of gay marriage.

Considering that the only discussions on marriage in this forum are with respect to gay marriage, you are correct. And my view is about as fringe as it gets. None of these items change the fact that I voted for the only presidential candidate in 2012 who supported gay marriage and that one of the reasons I voted for Gary Johnson was because he supported gay marriage. Your continued insistence that I'm a gay bashing bigot is very far off base. If I thought you were doing anything other than trolling me, I would take offense.

Hmm, I have a slight feeling that you're just being sarcastic. Unfortunately, I'm well aware of the Libertarian party and the various rejects of the Republican Party, Johnson included that it proposes. It also went for Ron Paul back in his heyday of Libertarian gaybashing.

I appreciate that you're trying to distance yourself from libertarians that ain't libertarian in the right way, and thanks for telling me you voted Johnson (it cuts the crap out of much of your "I voted sensibly" rhetoric).

I kind of think that you took offense to me long before I took offense with your positions.

Okay.

Aye- we done?

I don't know. Are you done crafting fake positions for me so that you can call me a bigot? You are the only member of this forum who mischaracterizes my positions (either because you troll me or because you are stupid). So, despite your protestations to the contrary, the onus is on you honey bunch.

[thegreekdog]

You're looking at this slightly backwards. You don't need a rational reason to legalise anything, you need a rational reason to prohibit it. In the absence of a rational reason to prohibit something then by default (in an ideal world) we should all be free to do it whenever we want. Even more relevant in the gay marriage debate is that there has to be a rational reason why this group of people are allowed to, but that other group of people are not. Discriminatory laws are even harder (though not impossible depending on the subject) to rationalise.

Just so Symmetry doesn't get confused - DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

The laws are not discriminatory because they do not discriminate against a person, the law discriminates against a type of interpersonal relationship.

[Symmetry]

I have trouble understanding what a libertarian viewpoint is, as it basically seems to be a nebulous political philosophy at best, and at worst, seems to be an off-shoot of the Republican party in the US in these forums.

I can help you understand the libertarian viewpoint easily.

Go to your web browser.
Type in the web address of your preferred search engine (e.g. http://www.google.com).
Type in the search area "Libertarian Party"
You will be provided with various links, one of which should be the link to the Libertarian Party website. Click that link.
Read.

I get the feeling that you take your distinctly fringe view of marriage (and I'm being very generous in describing it as fringe) only in to discussions of gay marriage.

Considering that the only discussions on marriage in this forum are with respect to gay marriage, you are correct. And my view is about as fringe as it gets. None of these items change the fact that I voted for the only presidential candidate in 2012 who supported gay marriage and that one of the reasons I voted for Gary Johnson was because he supported gay marriage. Your continued insistence that I'm a gay bashing bigot is very far off base. If I thought you were doing anything other than trolling me, I would take offense.

Hmm, I have a slight feeling that you're just being sarcastic. Unfortunately, I'm well aware of the Libertarian party and the various rejects of the Republican Party, Johnson included that it proposes. It also went for Ron Paul back in his heyday of Libertarian gaybashing.

I appreciate that you're trying to distance yourself from libertarians that ain't libertarian in the right way, and thanks for telling me you voted Johnson (it cuts the crap out of much of your "I voted sensibly" rhetoric).

I kind of think that you took offense to me long before I took offense with your positions.

Okay.

Aye- we done?

I don't know. Are you done crafting fake positions for me so that you can call me a bigot? You are the only member of this forum who mischaracterizes my positions (either because you troll me or because you are stupid). So, despite your protestations to the contrary, the onus is on you honey bunch.

If you took some of the positions you claimed to hold you'd not be less than half the man you claimed to be.

[crispybits]

Only if you assume that we are all free to choose any equally fulfilling type of personal relationship. If sexuality is seen as a fixed aspect of a person (we're all a little bit gay even if we're straight, it's a line of shades of grey rather than black and white), then discriminating against one kind of relationship is discriminating against all who find only that type of relationship fulfilling for them.

[thegreekdog]

Only if you assume that we are all free to choose any equally fulfilling type of personal relationship. If sexuality is seen as a fixed aspect of a person (we're all a little bit gay even if we're straight, it's a line of shades of grey rather than black and white), then discriminating against one kind of relationship is discriminating against all who find only that type of relationship fulfilling for them.

The government doesn't tell a gay couple they cannot get married. The government is telling a gay couple that they will not receive the same federally granted benefits that are given to a non-gay married couple. Therefore, a gay couple is free to engage in any personal relationship they want.

[thegreekdog]

If you took some of the positions you claimed to hold you'd not be less than half the man you claimed to be.

What positions do I claim to hold?
What positions make me who I claim to be?

I ask because you seem to know more about my positions than I do.

For example, I believe I'm pro gay marriage. You know that I'm anti gay marriage.
For example, I believe I'm in favor of, or at least indifferent to, gun control. You know that I'm anti gun control.

What are my views on abortion? What about climate change? What about immigration?

[crispybits]

Only if you assume that we are all free to choose any equally fulfilling type of personal relationship. If sexuality is seen as a fixed aspect of a person (we're all a little bit gay even if we're straight, it's a line of shades of grey rather than black and white), then discriminating against one kind of relationship is discriminating against all who find only that type of relationship fulfilling for them.

The government doesn't tell a gay couple they cannot get married. The government is telling a gay couple that they will not receive the same federally granted benefits that are given to a non-gay married couple. Therefore, a gay couple is free to engage in any personal relationship they want.

Actually by definition the government is, because it is refusing to recognise that marriage legally. It's not just about tax breaks, it's also about next of kin rights and responsibilities in the absence of a written will, making emergency medical decisons, etc etc.

[Symmetry]

If you took some of the positions you claimed to hold you'd not be less than half the man you claimed to be.

What positions do I claim to hold?
What positions make me who I claim to be?

I ask because you seem to know more about my positions than I do.

For example, I believe I'm pro gay marriage. You know that I'm anti gay marriage.
For example, I believe I'm in favor of, or at least indifferent to, gun control. You know that I'm anti gun control.

What are my views on abortion? What about climate change? What about immigration?

Feel free to elaborate. You seem to hold different views when confronted, after all.

[thegreekdog]

If you took some of the positions you claimed to hold you'd not be less than half the man you claimed to be.

What positions do I claim to hold?
What positions make me who I claim to be?

I ask because you seem to know more about my positions than I do.

For example, I believe I'm pro gay marriage. You know that I'm anti gay marriage.
For example, I believe I'm in favor of, or at least indifferent to, gun control. You know that I'm anti gun control.

What are my views on abortion? What about climate change? What about immigration?

Feel free to elaborate. You seem to hold different views when confronted, after all.

Different views on what precisely? Where did you get the idea that I was against gay marriage? Where did you get the idea that I was against gun control? That would be helpful in understanding where your confusion lies. Then I can address the other three (abortion, climate change, and immigration), unless you can tell me what you think my views on those issues are first (which would save time).

[Symmetry]

If you took some of the positions you claimed to hold you'd not be less than half the man you claimed to be.

What positions do I claim to hold?
What positions make me who I claim to be?

I ask because you seem to know more about my positions than I do.

For example, I believe I'm pro gay marriage. You know that I'm anti gay marriage.
For example, I believe I'm in favor of, or at least indifferent to, gun control. You know that I'm anti gun control.

What are my views on abortion? What about climate change? What about immigration?

Feel free to elaborate. You seem to hold different views when confronted, after all.

Different views on what precisely? Where did you get the idea that I was against gay marriage? Where did you get the idea that I was against gun control? That would be helpful in understanding where your confusion lies. Then I can address the other three (abortion, climate change, and immigration), unless you can tell me what you think my views on those issues are first (which would save time).

It's kind of tempting to pull your trick of just typing "ok", but this isn't a gun control, abortion, climate change, or immigration thread, so would it be fair to ask you stop railing against me and stay on topic?

[thegreekdog]

If you took some of the positions you claimed to hold you'd not be less than half the man you claimed to be.

What positions do I claim to hold?
What positions make me who I claim to be?

I ask because you seem to know more about my positions than I do.

For example, I believe I'm pro gay marriage. You know that I'm anti gay marriage.
For example, I believe I'm in favor of, or at least indifferent to, gun control. You know that I'm anti gun control.

What are my views on abortion? What about climate change? What about immigration?

Feel free to elaborate. You seem to hold different views when confronted, after all.

Different views on what precisely? Where did you get the idea that I was against gay marriage? Where did you get the idea that I was against gun control? That would be helpful in understanding where your confusion lies. Then I can address the other three (abortion, climate change, and immigration), unless you can tell me what you think my views on those issues are first (which would save time).

It's kind of tempting to pull your trick of just typing "ok", but this isn't a gun control, abortion, climate change, or immigration thread, so would it be fair to ask you stop railing against me and stay on topic?

That was an epic dodge.

Let's stay on topic then - where did you get the idea that I was against gay marriage? It couldn't be this thread, since I noted at least twice that I was playing devil's advocate.

[Symmetry]

If you took some of the positions you claimed to hold you'd not be less than half the man you claimed to be.

What positions do I claim to hold?
What positions make me who I claim to be?

I ask because you seem to know more about my positions than I do.

For example, I believe I'm pro gay marriage. You know that I'm anti gay marriage.
For example, I believe I'm in favor of, or at least indifferent to, gun control. You know that I'm anti gun control.

What are my views on abortion? What about climate change? What about immigration?

Feel free to elaborate. You seem to hold different views when confronted, after all.

Different views on what precisely? Where did you get the idea that I was against gay marriage? Where did you get the idea that I was against gun control? That would be helpful in understanding where your confusion lies. Then I can address the other three (abortion, climate change, and immigration), unless you can tell me what you think my views on those issues are first (which would save time).

It's kind of tempting to pull your trick of just typing "ok", but this isn't a gun control, abortion, climate change, or immigration thread, so would it be fair to ask you stop railing against me and stay on topic?

That was an epic dodge.

Let's stay on topic then - where did you get the idea that I was against gay marriage? It couldn't be this thread, since I noted at least twice that I was playing devil's advocate.

From your arguments against government recognition of marriage being solely devoted to arguments against recognition of gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage.

You don't get this upset about heterosexual marriages.

[thegreekdog]

From your arguments against government recognition of marriage being solely devoted to arguments against recognition of gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage.

You don't get this upset about heterosexual marriages.

I need a specific thread, not your interpretation of my posts.

[thegreekdog]

This is all from one thread. We were a team back then... sigh...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176639&hilit=gay+marriage&start=15#p3857488

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176639&hilit=gay+marriage&start=45#p3858798

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176639&hilit=gay+marriage&start=45#p3859073

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176639&hilit=gay+marriage&start=60#p3859129

[Symmetry]

From your arguments against government recognition of marriage being solely devoted to arguments against recognition of gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage.

You don't get this upset about heterosexual marriages.

I need a specific thread, not your interpretation of my posts.

Hmm, you've kind of driven me into a dead end if I can't interpret your posts. Is this an interpretation of your post?

But hey- I think this might end this argument- PM me TGD, and catalog your issues.

[Symmetry]

Do you realize the utter bias the title of this thread exudes?
It reads like the front page of a tabloid ffs.

I'm not sure what bias you think I'm exuded and uttering, but if it involves being British and being archaically hypocritical I'm all in.

[thegreekdog]

From your arguments against government recognition of marriage being solely devoted to arguments against recognition of gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage.

You don't get this upset about heterosexual marriages.

I need a specific thread, not your interpretation of my posts.

Hmm, you've kind of driven me into a dead end if I can't interpret your posts. Is this an interpretation of your post?

But hey- I think this might end this argument- PM me TGD, and catalog your issues.

Actually, the post above your post ends the argument. It's a thread wherein I clearly indicated my views on gay marriage and you clearly read those posts since you responded to the person I responded to. Thus, I can conclude that you are likely trolling me (again).

[Symmetry]

From your arguments against government recognition of marriage being solely devoted to arguments against recognition of gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage.

You don't get this upset about heterosexual marriages.

I need a specific thread, not your interpretation of my posts.

Hmm, you've kind of driven me into a dead end if I can't interpret your posts. Is this an interpretation of your post?

But hey- I think this might end this argument- PM me TGD, and catalog your issues.

Actually, the post above your post ends the argument. It's a thread wherein I clearly indicated my views on gay marriage and you clearly read those posts since you responded to the person I responded to. Thus, I can conclude that you are likely trolling me (again).

I'm kind of the opinion that you're doing your thing of calling me a troll and a moron, as that's what you seem to do when confronted by me of late, and your arguments run into the gutter, so I think you and I can call it a day.

[thegreekdog]

From your arguments against government recognition of marriage being solely devoted to arguments against recognition of gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage.

You don't get this upset about heterosexual marriages.

I need a specific thread, not your interpretation of my posts.

Hmm, you've kind of driven me into a dead end if I can't interpret your posts. Is this an interpretation of your post?

But hey- I think this might end this argument- PM me TGD, and catalog your issues.

Actually, the post above your post ends the argument. It's a thread wherein I clearly indicated my views on gay marriage and you clearly read those posts since you responded to the person I responded to. Thus, I can conclude that you are likely trolling me (again).

I'm kind of the opinion that you're doing your thing of calling me a troll and a moron, as that's what you seem to do when confronted by me of late, and your arguments run into the gutter, so I think you and I can call it a day.

I called you a troll only (not a moron). I called you both a troll and stupid earlier in this thread, which did not stop you from continuing to post. Thus, I can conclude that I have again bested you since you've now decided to call it a day. If it's any consolation, I take no pride in beating you again since you tried to argue that I was against gay marriage when I clearly wasn't. It was an untenable position for you. So it really wasn't fair.

Have a good evening.

[Symmetry]

I'm really not mature enough not to to try to get the last word in, TGD.

[daddy1gringo]

I think FT is referring to the claim that he is saying that it is gay marriage, and not the proposed legal action, that is undemocratic.

As I have said before, nobody is advocating laws that would prevent anyone from marrying whom they like. That is, to "love" whom they like, live with whom they like, sleep with whom they like, and to go to one of the many clergy who will perform the ceremony. All that people are saying is that there will be negative consequences from the government officially declaring that legally equal to traditional marriage.

You can, as always happens, go on to say that that is still unjust, and we could debate that point, but it is not the same thing and it is disingenuous to go on speaking as if it is.

Couple of absolutely genuine questions from that post:

All that people are saying is that there will be negative consequences from the government officially declaring that legally equal to traditional marriage.

You can, as always happens, go on to say that that is still unjust, and we could debate that point, but it is not the same thing and it is disingenuous to go on speaking as if it is.

What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?

Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?

I could legitimately get out of answering by saying, "you'd have to ask the archbishop who made the staement." Technically, I wasn't taking that position, but only pointing out a problem with the way the debate was framed up to this point (and usually is). However, although that would be true and legitimate, it would be a wussy thing to do.

Give me some time to get back to you with an answer worthy of absolutely genuine questions; this is a complex and sensitive subject.

I do intend to answer your questions, but first I need to point out that what you are doing by asking them is exactly what I talked about in the first post.

I point out that those on the "no" side of the gay marriage issue are falsely represented as presuming to make laws not allowing people to "love" whom they choose to, to be a "couple" with whom they choose to, live with, sleep with, have sex with whom they choose to. Yes, there are some (fewer than you think) who advocate that, and yes, there are (old, unenforced) laws in various places to that effect, but that is irrelevant to the political issues that we are debating here. The issues involve various legal and financial issues regarding those couples. For the millionth time, yes we can debate the justice of that, but it is changing the subject.

Look, I, and a lot more people on my side of the fence than you realize, recognize that in the 21st century in the U.S. and the U.K., where many people are not Christians, we can't require that the laws conform to the Bible. We would be better off if they did, but the combination of democracy and diversity prevent that.

So I point that out, then people change the subject to debating the legal/financial issues, and the falsehood goes untouched to be repeated next time: "Why can't you let people do what they want?" "You're making laws to tell people who they can love/ have sex with", etc blabla... and it's "when did you stop beating your wife?" I am being required to defend something that I do not believe.

What is needed before I can be fairly expectred to answer those questions is an acknowledgement of the point I brought up: that I (and most people on my side of the fence) are not advocating using the secular law to forbid people from having homosexual sex. Then we could go on to intelligently debating the consequences of the measures actually being sought by both sides.

[comic boy]

Its really very simple ;
1) Gay couples should recieve exactly the same state sponsored benefits as those recieved by heterosexual couples.
2) No religious institution should be forced to ' marry ' a gay couple if it conflicts with their particular doctrine.
All the rest is semantics and bullshit.

[BigBallinStalin]

I see somebody has read the link...

[crispybits]

I do intend to answer your questions, but first I need to point out that what you are doing by asking them is exactly what I talked about in the first post.

I point out that those on the "no" side of the gay marriage issue are falsely represented as presuming to make laws not allowing people to "love" whom they choose to, to be a "couple" with whom they choose to, live with, sleep with, have sex with whom they choose to. Yes, there are some (fewer than you think) who advocate that, and yes, there are (old, unenforced) laws in various places to that effect, but that is irrelevant to the political issues that we are debating here. The issues involve various legal and financial issues regarding those couples. For the millionth time, yes we can debate the justice of that, but it is changing the subject.

Look, I, and a lot more people on my side of the fence than you realize, recognize that in the 21st century in the U.S. and the U.K., where many people are not Christians, we can't require that the laws conform to the Bible. We would be better off if they did, but the combination of democracy and diversity prevent that.

So I point that out, then people change the subject to debating the legal/financial issues, and the falsehood goes untouched to be repeated next time: "Why can't you let people do what they want?" "You're making laws to tell people who they can love/ have sex with", etc blabla... and it's "when did you stop beating your wife?" I am being required to defend something that I do not believe.

What is needed before I can be fairly expectred to answer those questions is an acknowledgement of the point I brought up: that I (and most people on my side of the fence) are not advocating using the secular law to forbid people from having homosexual sex. Then we could go on to intelligently debating the consequences of the measures actually being sought by both sides.

But the whole point of this thread is that this particular bishop IS trying to use secular law to forbid people from having their relationships recognised, based on his religious beliefs. It's not about sex, or living with someone, or holding hands in public, or any of that. The conversation is all about legal and financial rights as granted by a secular government to two people in a relationship that is accepted by a majority of the population as being morally and legally permissible. I'm not saying the catholic church (or any other) should be forced to start holding gay marriages, but this bishop IS saying "it's not allowed in my religion, therefore it shouldn't be allowed for anyone". THIS is why he is the focus of the criticism of many in this thread.

I acknowledge that apart from a few nutty fundamentalists nobody is going to try and ban homosexual sex or relationships using secular law. But even after I acknowledge that, we still have the two questions I posted direct from your own words where you said that there are negative consequences to society to allowing gay marriage. I genuinely don't see what you could be referring to there that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked in the last 20 or so years.

[chang50]

Look, I, and a lot more people on my side of the fence than you realize, recognize that in the 21st century in the U.S. and the U.K., where many people are not Christians, we can't require that the laws conform to the Bible. We would be better off if they did, but the combination of democracy and diversity prevent that.

Can you elaborate on what way we would be better off,and would this apply to the OT?