The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Einherjar wrote:

And you would off course not restrict the various religious institutions rights to marry whosoever they wish and call it marriage would you? If not, I would consider your possition identical to mine.

Of course not. That too fits in the category of freedom of religion. What I'm suggesting is perhaps a new bill, to take the gay stigma off of "civil union", and adopt the term (in lieu of marriage) to mean all such contracts in the eyes of the law.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the State having a different definition of the word marriage at all. But, I'm not at all religious. However, in keeping with our grandest of all traditions (granting recognition to an old document known as the bill of rights), I can understand why a religious person would feel differently. And frankly, having just purposely looked at it through the eyes of a theist; I'm not sure how I'd vote, were I on the Supreme Court that WILL eventually make this decision.

Refusing some religions or denominations the right to marry gay couples would violate said bill would it not?

Einherjar wrote:

Refusing some religions or denominations the right to marry gay couples would violate said bill would it not?

In my opinion? Yes. As it is now, or with the bill I propose.

Question. I would really like to know why it is so important to the pro-gay marriage crowd that the centuries old tradition of marriage as it is currently defined be dissolved?

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

Question. I would really like to know why it is so important to the pro-gay marriage crowd that the centuries old tradition of marriage as it is currently defined be dissolved?

Just to avoid more ducking of the question - and because the parallel still fits, seamlessly -

Why was it so important to the pro-interracial marriage crowd that the centuries old tradition of marriage as it was then defined was dissolved?

When did the meaning of marriage get claimed exclusively by the Christians?

Over here, less than half the population is still traditionally religious - but marriage is a meaningful thing to everyone. To marry remains the ultimate way of committing to each other even in this secularised day and age - it means as much to most of the many who marry only at city hall, and not at church, as to the religious newly weds.

Bush is now striving to impose a federal ban on including them, which would forbid Christians who do not mind sharing the institution of marriage with gay compatriots as much as it would forbid the secularized communities to share in the celebration of marriage and the bonds it represents when it comes to their gay neighbours, friends and family members.

I always have more of a problem with people forbidding anyone to assign a different interpretation of the meaning of something widely shared than that which they accord it, than with people who "violate" one person's interpretation of it by also allowing another's.

If your congregation does not want to marry gays, then by all means, let it not. But don't forbid those who have a different interpretation of which bonds are fit for marriage - whether it be churches that do allow gays to marry or secular folk who celebrate marriage in town hall, but accord it just as much respect and significance - to act according to their principles. They're not forcing you to marry gays or be there when gays marry - they just don't want you to force them not to marry gays or marry if they're gay. What's it to ya? Why can't each state and each congregation decide for itself?

So I answered your question. You still haven't answered mine.

nimh wrote:

Over here, less than half the population is still traditionally religious - but marriage is a meaningful thing to everyone. To marry remains the ultimate way of committing to each other even in this secularised day and age - it means as much to most of the many who marry only at city hall, and not at church, as to the religious newly weds.

Would your divorce rate statistics support this theory? I promise you ours wouldn't.

You are attempting to show a difference between Bush and Kerry's position over State or Federal? If this truly is a discrimination dispute, as your examples suggest, isn't the Fed the appropriate place for it to be settled... just like in your race example?
Religious Rights Vs. Gay Rights... definitely doesn't sound like a State issue to me.

nimh wrote:

I always have more of a problem with people forbidding anyone to assign a different interpretation of the meaning of something widely shared than that which they accord it, than with people who "violate" one person's interpretation of it by also allowing another's.

Really? Always? I'm curious when did it come up before?

Does each congregation retain the right to preach that homosexuality is wrong? If so, then granting the term marriage to homosexual unions does lessen the sanctity of their "most sacred institution". Now whether you or I think that's a rational position or not, it is reasonable.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

nimh wrote:

Over here, less than half the population is still traditionally religious - but marriage is a meaningful thing to everyone. To marry remains the ultimate way of committing to each other even in this secularised day and age - it means as much to most of the many who marry only at city hall, and not at church, as to the religious newly weds.

Would your divorce rate statistics support this theory? I promise you ours wouldn't.

Your point is? Higher divorce rates equate with marriage being less of an "ultimate way of committing to each other"?

And what about your use of "your" and "ours"? I was talking about Holland, yes, but doesn't the same point hold true for the secularised communities of the US? Is marriage not as meaningful for them as for the Christians who now claim that any implementation of it that differs from their interpretation of what it should be is a violation of their rights?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Does each congregation retain the right to preach that homosexuality is wrong? If so, then granting the term marriage to homosexual unions does lessen the sanctity of their "most sacred institution". Now whether you or I think that's a rational position or not, it is reasonable.

What's the difference between rational and reasonable?

You have not provided any reason why one of those "criteria" is any different from the others, or deserves to be discriminated on when the others don't, other than that it was discriminated on more often in the past as well.

As I said, my reasons for not wanting the definition of marriage changed is multilevel, but probably the most important reason is to retain the primary purpose which is to retain as much as possible clear lines of geneology for children and, also as much as possible, to encourage families with a mother and father present which has been demonstrated to be the best vehicle for raising children. (Exhaustive links to support this were provided some months ago on the Religion and Philosophy Forum, so please don't request they be dug up again.)

I also wonder what are your thoughts on the compromise I forwarded earlier where all unions, gay and straight alike are to be considered "civil unions" in the eyes of the law. This way, the State gets to duck the question altogether and "marriage" would simply be a religious issue.

Although definitive studies of these families don't yet exist -- the sample size is still too small -- that hasn't stopped states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah and Florida from passing laws to limit the rights of gays to adopt or to become foster parents. Policy makers on both sides of the culture wars are scrambling to find research to sway the debate: conservative groups like the American College of Pediatricians argue that kids raised by gay parents grow up sexually promiscuous and confused; advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union point to studies that suggest that the kids are as well adjusted as their peers, if not more so -- more resilient, more open-minded, more tolerant.

-snip-

As it stands, most of the studies that do exist have focused not on sexuality but on ''functioning,'' a concept measured by the Child Behavior Checklist, a standard assessment form that has been applied to hundreds of thousands of kids around the world. The checklist, which is more than 100 questions long, asks about everything from children's social competence (compared with other kids, how well does your child play and work alone, and play with other kids?) to their problem behaviors (does your child wet his bed, is he cruel to animals, afraid to go school?). In 1996, Charlotte J. Patterson, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, asked 55 lesbians and 25 heterosexual women, all 80 of whom had had children via donor insemination, to fill out the questionnaire. The teachers of their children were asked to do the same. The results, which Patterson published in the journal Child Development in 1998, found no significant differences among the children. In an earlier study that Patterson published in 1994, about gender development in the children of lesbian parents, she interviewed kids about their favorite toys, their playmates and their activities, and concluded, after churning the data, that they made the choices conventionally associated with their gender.