Oh woe is me....

[OperaTenor]

A hundred years ago you would have argued against the social benefit of women voting, I suppose, given that logic.

There are myriad practical social reasons to support same sex marriage, not the least of which is to give them the same legal and economic standing as hetero married couples.

Slavery, male chauvinism, and antisemitism were all conventions for centuries, yet blacks, women, and Jews have managed to gain acceptance as well.

The only reason the vote failed in California is that the majority fell for the hype.

[jamiebk]

The only reason the vote failed in California is that the majority fell for the hype.

The majority voted their minds. That's why it passed. A MAJORITY of the voters did not want gay marriage. That's why we have elections.

[Shapley]

There are myriad practical social reasons to support same sex marriage, not the least of which is to give them the same legal and economic standing as hetero married couples.

They have the same legal and economic standing as hetero unmarried couples. We sanction the marriage of hetero couples because we believe it grants a societal benefit. Without that benefit, there is no reason to sanction it. Your argument only lists the benefit to the couple, not to society, hence my claim that the demand is selfishness on their part. There are no societal sanctions in place against homosexual unions, but we do not sanction their unions as a 'marriage' because it does not meet the definition of such a union. What benefit does society gain by redefining the term to include such unions? Until you can answer that question truthfully and convincingly, society is not likely to support such a change.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Why should a couple who has committed their lives to each other not be allowed to visit each other in the ICU?

[Shapley]

The only reason the vote failed in California is that the majority fell for the hype.

You assume that anyone who would vote for a measure you oppose is 'falling for hype', as if absolute truth is on your side and all else is lies. Have you ever considered the possibility that you're the one 'falling for the hype' and the truth may lie with the opposition, or perhaps somewhere between?

You often take the absolutist position that you decry in others. It is entirly possible that those who opposed the measure did so from a reasonable and well-informed positon, or that the opponents of the measure simply could not make a valid case for opposing it.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

A hundred years ago you would have argued against the social benefit of women voting, I suppose, given that logic.

Actually, women's suffrage is a case in point. It was accepted that allowing women to vote would have an overall positive impact on society, and thus the prohibition against it was overturned.

[Shapley]

Why should a couple who has committed their lives to each other not be allowed to visit each other in the ICU?

That's actually a matter of hospital policies, not law, which determines who visits who in the ICU. Would the proposal have mandated, for example, that Catholic hospitals be required to allow such visits on the basis of a marriage which violates the religious tenets of their faith? If so, I would argue that the 'hype' regarding the issue is valid, and permitting homosexual marriage would allow the State to dictate to the Church what is required.

And, of course, I have to ask: How does society benefit if they are allowed to do so?

[OperaTenor]

First of all, the religious intolerance is completely baseless.

Tell me, Shap, what does the Bible say about social injustice? How many citations are there in the Bible about that subject?

Secondly, society benefits in that everyone is treated equally.

PS. Are you sure you want to point up a church with a history of homosexuality and pedophilia among the clergy, let alone a violently antisemitic, intolerant history in general, too much in this discussion?

[Shapley]

Tell me, Shap, what does the Bible say about social injustice? How many citations are there in the Bible about that subject?

I've already declined to get into an argument about faith issues on this thread. This is a political issue, and I'm trying to discuss it from a purely political point of view, i.e. societal benefit of a given action.

Secondly, society benefits in that everyone is treated equally.

Not really. Unmarried couples and single persons are still treated differently.

Why not do away with government involvement in marriage altogther? No tax breaks or penalties for married vs. unmarried. Anyone can name anyone as their beneficiary, heir, recipient, whatever. Why go through the charade of a religious ceremony in order to obtain civil benefits? That way, religious sects that do not wish to honour homosexual marriages can do so with no effect on anyone. The religious ceremeny remains just that. POSSLQ's and PSSSLQ's will be equal to married couples in the eyes of law, while the view from the eyes of the Church will have no impact upon it; True seperation of Church and State.

You were a military man, so you know how unfair the military is in its' treatment of single members vs. married ones. Married members are paid more, they are allowed to live off base or ashore. They are provided housing allowances, family seperation allowances. If something breaks in the middle of the night, the single members get rousted out of their bunks, but they don't call the married members in from home. Married members get leave requests granted more easily. Why not do away with that concept altogether, and treat everyone the same?

Why does the government sanction marriage in the first place? What business is it of the government's as to who lives with who? Get the government out of the marriage business and the debate is over, isn't it?

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Are you sure you want to point up a church with a history of homosexuality and pedophilia among the clergy, let alone a violently antisemitic, intolerant history in general, too much in this discussion?

I'm talking about the Church, not the actions of a few individuals within it. I thought you wanted to have a reasoned and logical discussions of an issue based on the merits or demerits of the issue itself, not to denigrate the beliefs of others. I am more than happy to defend my Church, even against the baseless charges levied against her on a regular basis.

You've lowered the tone of the discussion a few notches, by the way, which hasn't helped your position one iota.....

[OperaTenor]

Works for me.

It works for my priest, too. He believes the church ought to get out of the business of performing marriages for the very reason of the separation of church and state. When he performs a marriage, he is acting as an agent of the state, not the church. He believes that is inconsistent with the tenet of separation of church and state.

I agree.

[OperaTenor]

Are you sure you want to point up a church with a history of homosexuality and pedophilia among the clergy, let alone a violently antisemitic, intolerant history in general, too much in this discussion?

I'm talking about the Church, not the actions of a few individuals within it. I thought you wanted to have a reasoned and logical discussions of an issue based on the merits or demerits of the issue itself, not to denigrate the beliefs of others. I am more than happy to defend my Church, even against the baseless charges levied against her on a regular basis.

You've lowered the tone of the discussion a few notches, by the way, which hasn't helped your position one iota.....

Heh. I think we're seeing a case of painful truth striking home.

I can think of a few dozen lawsuits that say my position isn't baseless.

Are you saying the Spanish Inquisition wasn't antisemitic and/or didn't happen? Are you saying the Catholic church behaved appropriately toward the Jewish nation during WWII? Are you saying there haven't been a disproportionate instances of sexual misconduct, specifically homosexual, and pedophilia in the Catholic clergy?

Wow.



You don't really want to die on this hill....

[Shapley]

It works for my priest, too. He believes the church ought to get out of the business of performing marriages for the very reason of the separation of church and state. When he performs a marriage, he is acting as an agent of the state, not the church. He believes that is inconsistent with the tenet of separation of church and state.

Marriage is a religious Sacrament in the Catholic Church, and certainly predates our government, as well as most governments currently existing. In other churches, it is a ceremony and statement of union between a man and woman, though not all recognize it as a 'sacrament'. The State dictates that the Church must file a certificate of marriage with the State, in order to comply with the law. Could the church not refuse to do so?

I suggested long ago that Catholics should marry in the church, and then divorce in the courts. The Catholic Church would not recognize the divorce, and thus the couple would be religiously married but single in the eyes of the law. I proposed this as a protest to the intrusion of the State upon Church traditons.

[OperaTenor]

Could the church not refuse to do so?

Of course they could refuse. Why not? Let the marriage licenses be issued by the courthouse, and let the churches performed wedding celebrations.

Where in the Constitution does it say marriages have to be performed in churches?

[Shapley]

Are you saying the Spanish Inquisition wasn't antisemitic and/or didn't happen? Are you saying the Catholic church behaved appropriately toward the Jewish nation during WWII? Are you saying there haven't been a disproportionate instances of sexual misconduct, specifically homosexual, and pedophilia in the Catholic clergy?

The Spanish Inquisition, as the name implies, was a function of the Spanish Monarchs, though it was conducted under Papal Authority. While much of the early inquisitions targeted Jews who had converted to Christianity, it also targeted Prostestants. Under Papal authority, the inquisitors only had authority over Catholics, but the monarchy pressured Jews and Protestants to convert, thus placing them under the authority of the inquisitors. The Pope issued a Papal Bull to stop the inquisition, but was forced by political pressure to withdraw it. The Church at the time had little power over the Monarchs who claimed to be Catholic. It was, in fact, a failure of seperation of Church and State.

The Church has never sanctioned pedophilia or homosexuality, as you know. The Church has condemned both outright, as you know. Nonetheless, it seems that pedophiles and homosexuals have found the priesthood appealing, probably due the access it gives them to vulnerable persons. The Church is taking steps to remove the problem but, as I said, it is the action of individuals, not of the Church. Priests, alas, are human, and are subject to the failings of all humans. Nor do I think they are 'disproportionately represented', merely 'disproportionately reported'.....

[Shapley]

Where in the Constitution does it say marriages have to be performed in churches?

It doesn't. Many marriages are performed in courthouses, public parks, aboard cruise ships, and in private dwellings. Many of these are civil ceremonies, legal formalities that have nothing to do with Sacramental unions. I have attended more than one as a legal witness. The Judge spelled out very clearly that this was a legal ceremony, not a religious one. Nor does the license issued use the term "Matrimony" or "Holy Matrimony", as these are religious, rather than civil terms. Certificates issued by the Church generally use that term.

However, the Church has long held the importance of Marriage as a Sacramental union, and as the joining of a man and a woman. "Matrimony" has as it's root the term for "Motherhood", signifying the importance of Matrimony as a process for procreation. In fact, it is this that provides the reasoning for the sanctioning of marriage by the State - it provides (in theory and in general practice) the basis for a stable and nurturing environment for the rearing of children, who may otherwise become a burden upon the State. Homosexual unions offer no such benefit.

V/R
Shapley

[Serenity]

[Serenity]

[Shapley]

By the way, you do know that there was a huge stink here in Boston about priests abusing altar boys and keeping it quiet......How do we know priests weren't pleasuring each other behind closed doors when young boys weren't available while preaching homosexuality is wrong?

Does it matter? If the messenger is corrupt, does that make the message so? We elect lawmakers who breakt the law, and re-elect them even though we know they do so. People have been stealing things for as long as there have been things to steal, but we still believe that stealing is wrong, don't we. Do we give up the fight, or do we stick to what we know to be true, despite the failings of the messengers?

Every day I get on the freeway, I am passed by speeding motorists. The speed limit is as it has been for decades, and the police still get out several days a week and catch a small percentage of them, but it seems they barely make a dent in the number of speeders. Periodically, they'll catch a lawmaker, a judge, or even a fellow officer. So, do we surrender our streets to the lawless, and say 'everybody does it, so we should simply not have the laws', or do we stay with what we believe is necessary for the good order and conduct of civilized society? I favour the law, despite the periodic failings of those in charge of enforcing it.

[Serenity]