>But that is a matter of that churches faith, and should not have any consequences on the legal status of that couples civil union

Reading your blog since months, first post: True words.

Please keep your current brain ping, I really appreciate it.
 

Tobold,
Not sure about Canada, a nice place that I occasionally wish I lived in, but in the U.S. the gay marriage debate is a sham. It merely exists for certain socially conservative politicians to grab votes. They can mention their opposition to gay marriage and expect to draw automatic support from devoutly religious people who don't understand that there is a secular as well as a religious marriage. When elected, those pandering politicians don't have to do anything, because it is not like gay marriage in America is something that is likely to come in the next year or two. So the devoutly religious are being played.
As to why religion enters into the public debate, I think Richard Dawkins says it best. His new book "The God Delusion" is a thoughtful read for those who are religious skeptics or non-practishioners. His basic point is that we give to much credence to religious points of view, even though we ourselves do not believe any more than 1 of those views, and sometimes none. In the U.S., there are several catholic politicians who I generally admire but who are chained by the faith of their upbringing into taking stances that deeply conflict with their political philosophy.
Gay marriage will eventually be legalized in the Western world, the times are changing for it. I am 23 and I know practically no one my age who opposes the secular recognition of gay marriage, perhaps only 1 in 10 do oppose it. My generation will eventually be the one that holds political power and then, if not before, the gay marriage debate will be put to rest. However, for me, it is hard to look in the eyes of a gay person I care about and tell them "Just wait, and someday you will not be a second class citizen."
 

my 2nd post on your blog ;) i really like the way you write your ideas and arguements, nicely written....

You seem to have quite a talent at it, keep up the good work...

PS. i agree...
 

Well, the legal and religious aspects ARE separate, at least in most European countries, and North America.

The fact that you get married in a church in England blurs the boundary. But essentially the state only recognises the signing of the register IIRC. It really matters not a jot if someone "objects" or you don't promise to love, honour and obey - as long as you sign the register you are married in the eyes of the state.

Of course not all religious places can act in such a way, my Muslim friend got married in Wandsworth Registry office on the Saturday, and at a religous ceremony the next day. We spent Saturday night out on the town as they didn't considered him actually married then ! It was quite a good line to tell girls that he got married a few hours ago and was already living it up with wifey staying at home ;)

I guess religion does have a say in marriage, as for a 1000 years it ruled the roost in terms of setting the rules. But as you rightly pointed out, marriage predates many religions, and it is now mostly separate.

I am all for gay marriage, but can equally as well see it is OK for churches to say "No, we won't do that". Don't really agree with their point of view - but i respect their right to hold it.
 

Impressive - some serious topic here, i like diversity.

So why can't we discuss the legal status of same-sex marriage without argueing whether or not the christian God would approve of it?

Cause there is no other argumentation left, wich would stand a serious debate. There are tons of topics, where when there is doubt, bring in the religious argument to tame it and i admit it's hard to speak against a such an experienced concept as religion. In many topics it's kinda untouchable and so it's exploited by many.

I am 23 and I know practically no one my age who opposes the secular recognition of gay marriage, perhaps only 1 in 10 do oppose it.

We are about the same age and i agree to that. That said people change and so are their opinions. I also know a lot of people who doesn't oppose gay marriage now, but would they stand up for their opinion when it would be voting time and everybody watches them argumenting for it? I don't think so.

I am convinced that this is a problem of today´s politicians too, who in their private rooms may have nothing against gay marriage, but when it comes to vote for or against it, it's a whole new situation. They can live with the labeled "gay hater", but they could not stand the label "gay supporter".
 

Religious fanatics have been yelling in the streets for thousands of years, and I doubt they will stop anytime soon.
Secularism has come a long way since the days of witch burnings, and the inquisitions, but gay marriage is still one of the issues that bring them out in full force.
Personally, I believe that people are people no matter what faith they may or may not belong to. Civil unions wouldn't bother me one bit because the big picture is that there are people who are different colors, different religions, and different sexual orientations and until we all get it through our thick skulls that the world doesn't revolve around our way of thinking, there will never be lasting piece.
 

All of this anti-religion pro-gay stuff is so tedious. Tell me, what is the secular stance on marrying multiple people? How about marrying children? Why bother being married at all, when it no longer means having a family?

I'm sure it helps to put on blinders and only want to contend the little part of open marriage that doesn't sound patently obsurd. Go ahead and defend the creepy 40 year old ogling the little girls/boys, after all she/he loves the old man and she/he is a person too isn't she/he?.

"Hey! we're talking about consenting adults here, don't bring in this pedophile crap!"

Sure you are...for now.
 

David,
I admire the fact that you are willing to hold your own beliefs while allowing others to do as they will. Perhaps as Tobold said, we should have everyone get a "Civil Union" from the state that grants the secular benefits of marriage, including benefits that are absolutely impossible to obtain via contracts such as, in the U.S., social security survivor benefits.
As far as the tired argument that gay marriage leads to all sorts of aberations like pediophilia, this reminds me of the comments of a soon to be ex-senator from Pennsylvania, that sex between two men leads to bestiality. There is no slippery slope, there are only two competing definitions of marriage: that it is between two consenting adults one of whom is male and one female or that it is between two consenting adults full stop. If you ignore the ambigious commands of religion, there is nothing to privilege the former over the later in ethical or social terms.
As far as marriage being for procreation, this is patently untrue. The poster notes that some marriages are infertile, but the majority are fertile. So it seems that he thinks that marriage is allowed when there is a probabalistic liklihood of having a child. However, we allow marriages where there is zero probability of having a child, such as allowing a women who is beyond menopause to marry, and gay marriage would be no different. If gay marriage were legal, the majority of marriages would still include children, especially accounting for adoption. Even so, it seems unlikely in this severely overpopulated world that we could in good conscience say that the government needs to encourage the production of more people.
Finally, I actually disagree that the people should be allowed to decide all issues. In the U.S., and in most democratic countries I believe, there are many provisions taken to ensure that the minority has rights even if the majority would like to take those rights away. For example, 51% of the country cannot vote to take away the vote from 49% of the country. In generally, civil rights are a poor place to trust in popular sovereignity, as examples such as slavery show us. The Supreme Court clearly did the right thing in the 50's when it ruled, in Loving V. Virginia, that laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional. Yet 9 months before that decision a Gallup poll found that roughly 2/3s of the country thought that black/white marriages should be outlawed. The public is not always right.
I'm done now. Thankyou Tobold for starting an interesting discussion, it provides a nice diversion from hearing about a Beta test that I can't play.
 

I think that a civil union of two persons of the same sex should have some rights similar to those of a marriage, but not necessarily all of them. What I was argueing is that we could see the advantages and disadvantages a lot clearer if we ignored the religious aspects. For example I could see how a democratic community could decide to deny a gay couple the same adoption rights that a heterosexual couple has. No, I don't think that every gay man is a pedophile, but a few are (including Republican senators), and I could see how when balancing the pros and the cons a legislation could decide that the risk outweighs the benefits. Or that a homosexual couple isn't a good role-model for children.

On the other hand there is no good reason why the inheritance rights between a man and a woman living together should be any different than those between two men living together.

But all these are secular reasons, which will have to be debated over the coming years in most western countries. And I think some sort of compromise will be reached. The extreme religious position that any sort of rights for a homosexual couple should be denied, because it is an abomination upon God isn't tenable. Just like the pope's position on contraception, the religious position is way behind the secular position.
 

"I've just read an article about Canada, where politics are usually much more secular than in the USA. But the same-sex marriage debate suddenly has introduced a much larger than usual dose of religion into politics. It seems that most of the arguments against same-sex marriage are faith-based. Now that surprises me."

I'm not sure I fully understand the point of view of your "surprise" here. Ultimately aspects of "right" and "wrong" are based on religion. There are no moral absolutes without guidance from a religion/higher power. The majority of people in the US profess believe in a "God/higher power".

Laws that are good for business and for "civil order" are generally agreed on (example: murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc...). Most everything else is subjected to morality which is usually derived from religion.
 

Right and wrong exists outside of religion. It is derived from social rules of behavior. Parking your car under a no parking sign is wrong, and there are laws against it, but religion doesn't come into that.
 

I'd be fine with "gay marriage" as long as it removed the tax incentives which are there to help families raise children on a single salary.
 

What struck me when the movie Alexander came out was how everyone said how the Greeks were more open. But the fact was even then, when there was nothing religious about it, there was no gay marriage. Certainly there were couples, and monogamous ones, but marriage was not only about love but about procreation.

Funny enough, when I was a devout Christian, I supported gay marriage. Now that I am pretty much an athiest, believing in evolution and that our morals are merely genetic programming combined with social teaching (i.e. mostly based on practicality), my support is much lower. In the animal world animals will experiment but the monogamous species (which often aren't all that monogamous) will still try to procreate and create lasting relationships with the opposite sex. i.e. there is no gay or straight, to animals marriage is about procreation, and everything else is just for fun.

So my studies of evolution, genetics, and such, while I am just a dilletante, make me think it's not a good idea, mainly because they won't be procreating. Of course they could certainly adopt, and there are plenty of children needing adoption. (I could say, based on the neighborhood I live in, gay men are all buff and good looking and smart and we need those genes! ;) )

And of course we don't have to be bound by that past. Certainly Kurzweil thinks a brand new kind of evolution is coming where we completely change and won't be bound by our genes which tell us xenophobia is good, for instance, etc.

So .. I don't know what to think. But I do know in America even Democrat heavy states have voted overwhelmingly in referendums to pass amendments to ban it, so it's certainly not one party, or one group of people, but just people in general.
 

One more thing,
Oh and as far as religious teachings, "homophobia" has been exhibited often in the animal kingdom, especially when forced overcrowding was being tested. So I think the religous edicts probably came from some base genetic programming that said "these people are just eating your food but not contributing to the gene pool" rather than the anger coming from religion.

A lot of negative and bad or hateful behavior is exhibited by animals but we don't recognize it.

You can tell I lean towards nature in the nature vs nurture debate. It's a lot of both, but this is one area where there is ample evidence nature plays a part.
 

Alcaras, I liked the clear, concise way you phrase your arguments, but I'd argue that if gays have to fight for the same rights or state-given privileges that are automatically given to "married" heterosexual couples, that's still discrimination.

Imagine it this way. A black man and a white man go to vote. The white man is ushered straight in and shown to a polling booth. The black man is taken to one side where he's asked to write his name and address, and a few sentences about a topic chosen at random. He's asked to read a page from a text book, then discuss what he's just read with another person. Only after completing all of this is the black man shown to a polling booth.

At the end of the day both the white man and the black man got to vote, so there was no discrimination, right?

As a Christian I believe that marriage should only exist between a man and a woman and their god (and/or church). The Church is where my wife and I got married, but really that was nothing more than a ceremony in a building before family & friends. That event didn't have to happen and we would have still been married in the eyes of the law, because prior to getting "married" my wife and I entered into a State-recognized union, and that State-recognized union is what bestowed on us the privileges homosexuals cannot get without a fight.

Of course with State-recognized homosexual unions comes the tricky question, what about adoption? Of course we can't let homosexuals adopt children because they're all pedophiles. They're not? But that's what the right-wingers would have us believe.

Having a gay cousin I've met quite a few gay people, and they're just like you and me (almost ;) Same dreams, same fears, same ambitions. Some of the gays I've met are loving devoted fathers to the biological children they had with their wives before they came out of the closet. The argument that some homosexuals are pedophiles is irrelevant and also just clouds the issue. I'd argue that a pedophile is not a homosexual because he (assuming it's a he) doesn't want to have sex with other, mature, consenting adults; he just wants to have sex with young boys or girls. And what about a pedophile that has sex with a young girl? If he's having sex with a female (even a 10-year old) he's obviously not a homosexual, right? Again that's a rather inane argument. You can be a homosexual pedophile or a heterosexual pedophile. I very much doubt being a homosexual increases your likelihood of being a pedophile and if you're going to deny adoption rights to homosexual couples because some pedophiles have sex with boys, you should also deny adoption rights to all heterosexual couples because some pedophiles have sex with young girls. Using that argument it would actually be ok to let homosexual couples adopt girls because they're homosexuals! They don't have sex with women so they won't have sex with young girls. In fact the logical follow on from that is that only homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. The gay guys can adopt all the girls, and lesbian couples can get all the boys, and now they definitely need the same privileges the State awards heterosexual couples because they need to be able to look after their adopted kids, provide them with decent medical care, schooling, etc.

Tobold, this is an awesome place to have this discussion. Not one person has said STFU and die, Fag! Er...except me, just now. Let's ignore that, shall we :)

The other argument that homosexuals aren't being discriminated against because a heterosexual male also cannot marry another male is also fallacious because unlike the homosexual, the heterosexual male can marry anyone he wants to because he'd only want to marry a female and he couldn't truthfully say otherwise. A homosexual cannot marry anyone he wants to because he only wants to marry another heterosexual male, or at least join with him in a State-recognized union, and he cannot do that without a fight.

It's discrimination, plain & simple. If the Democrats/liberals are all so much for homosexual marriage let's see what happens if a Democrat President gets elected here in the US of A, especially if the Democrats gain control of the house. I'm not a Republic (or a Democrat), I'm a Libertarian, which is why I'm in support of homosexual marriage. Gays have just as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us ;)
 

Interesting topic Tobold. I applaud you for being willing to take any position =)

I'm for gay marriage simply because I've known a few homosexual couples and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed all the benefits I get as a heterosexual married person. Even the least "normal" of them was no wierder than any random person on the street. Why should they be second class citizens? It could be easily argued that a homorsexual couple is better in some aspects as they will not mindlessly reproduce like some hetero couples will (the public aid living parent, so common these days).

My wife, however, is completely opposed to it. She, unfortunately, has no true arguement for it, which is often what I hear when arguements against homosexual marriage are given. She often will state "the bible says it's bad!" or something similar, but will not be able to find me that quote to that effect. I've long since learned that in the interest of marital bliss to simply ignore the arguement. She's not moving from her position, nor am I. I'm afraid that her unswerving opposition based on something implied in her youth is probably more common than not.
 

"Right and wrong exists outside of religion. It is derived from social rules of behavior. Parking your car under a no parking sign is wrong, and there are laws against it, but religion doesn't come into that."

Yes, but this answer is still insufficient. What makes a "social rule" or "behavior" right or wrong; because I say so; because you say so; because George Bush or Saddam Hussein says so?

At the Nuremberg trials after WWII, the defense argued that the Nazis were simply following the laws of their land. The prosecution stood up and said, “But gentlemen, isn’t there a law above our laws!?” To which Darwin and Kant would say, “No”.

In some societies, people love their neighbor; in other societies they eat them. Do you have a personal preference?

Without a “higher authority”, all “laws” are simply a product of “majority rule”.
 

Do you really believe that people are going to start making less babies because of allowing same-sex marriage? Or do you believe homosexuality is a disease and if we banned it homosexual we'll start making babies?

I'm talking about the argument about favoring the super-union because of reproductivity.
Our society could favor baby growth by reducing our need to have beautiful and expansive things. Why having a baby when you can have a 45 inch plasma TV with the PS2 and Wii (I'm not a fan of the XBOX)?

The Greek had marriage but they also had slave. And I bet they didn't treat their women equally either.

The love between a man and a women are the same as the love between two men or two woman. They want that recognition above all else, the rest is just gravy.

The Charter of right see all human as equal. They are no turning back.

They only way out is for the government to get out completely of marriage. Then every citizen pay their taxes the same.
Everyone fill the same paperwork. Everyone is equal.
 

I don't think homosexuality is a matter of right and wrong, because that would implicate choice. But sexual arousal is not something that is controlled. The only "choice" that a homosexual has is whether he pretends heterosexuality, or whether he follows the path that his body tells him.

But the "all discrimination is bad" argument is as wrong as the "the bible says so" argument. Are dwarves unfairly discriminated against in the selection of basketball players? Or is that "discrimination" a simple logical conclusion from obvious facts? A homosexual couple is *not* exactly the same as a heterosexual one, because of their biological impossibility to procreate. So any legal advantages that are given to a married couple to encourage them to have children shouldn't be automatically gained by same-sex couples.
 

Alex, you couldn't have responded more perfectly had I given you a script. Thank you.

Polygamy does make more sense and is more beneficial to the species and society than homosexual unions. So why is Jeffs arrested while queer eye for the straight guy is endorsed?

In order to become more civilized we need to learn to control our passions such as homosexuality, murder, rape, road rage, and substance abuse. Instead we become more and more "tolerant", spiraling into "every man for himself" anarchy.
 

Well polygamy is not necessarily good from a biological standpoint. (let's ignore the social reasons e.g. it is just an excuse to exploit women) There are many birds and apes which are monogamous. Now many will cheat, but there is still a trend to be monogamous. There must be a reason.

My personal belief it is has to do with kin selection. A full sibling shares half your genes, your mother shares half your genes, a half sibling only a quarter. If we didn't know if our siblings were full or half (if, like animals, we were not told so by our parents) kin selection falls apart, we treat our close relatives like distant relatives (i.e. 1/2 as likely to receive favor or energy helping them), which would have been worse for those animals and primitive humans practicing polygamy. The ones practicing monogamy might have a benefit in that close relations would be recognized as such, and therefore treated better, and therefore the tribe might be more likely to survive and those genes for monogamy be more likely to be passed on than those for polygamy.

The second drawback of not recognizing close kin would be incest. Higher order animals are predisposed against incest. If I know my parents are monogamous I know who my full siblings are and can avoid having children with them. If I don't, then the chance increases I accidentally have children with my siblings, thus increasing the likelyhood my genetic line will die out due to killer recessive genes.

So there is a strong biological argument for why monogamy started and why the most advanced animals (birda and apes and whales) tend towards monogamy. Though like I said even these species will cheat on "spouses" so the drive for males to impregnate everything in sight is still strong :)
 

btw, Richard Dawkins was on South Park this week. It was great.
 

Right and wrong exists outside of religion. It is derived from social rules of behavior. Parking your car under a no parking sign is wrong, and there are laws against it, but religion doesn't come into that. -Tobold

Actually, Catholic teaching holds that valid civil governments and their laws are to followed unless they tell you to do something immoral/ against natural law.

Thanks for giving me hope, btw. You've bothered to learn enough to argue for and against the subject-- I disagree with you, but you're actually bothering to put thought into your argument. That causes a healthy debate, results in a better thought process for those involved.

Oh, about "all the arguments against are religious"-- I don't use religion as an argument, because it only works with folks that agree. I simply point out that it's a religious contract that was adopted into various cultures because it supports the ability to reproduce and effectively raise children to be contributing adults.

Since I joined the Navy and got to know folks who grew up with only one gender of parent (either through divorce, death or deployment) I've seen the effects. It's different for each of them, but you can generally learn to tell who didn't have a mom and dad-- or at least a mom and highly involved granddad, etc-- from talking to folks.

Kaziel-- Oddly, there isn't anything that says their must be a separation of church and state. That's from, I believe, a private letter of T. Jefferson. The constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the free practice of religion.

Tried to post this yesterday and the dang thing wouldn’t work……
 

The argument that you're seeing above (that only religion can be a source of ethical behaviour) is entangled in the religion meme because it helps control the believers. Leaders can order their followers to do anything, and so long as they remember to put "Simon says" at the front their orders will be obeyed. This is a dangerous teaching and it is unfortunate to say the least that today billions of people follow it. A large number of people every year experience a psychiatric illness in which they believe something (usually their internal dialogue) is actually God speaking to them, if they feel obliged to obey orders from God this illness is immediately very dangerous.

In fact societies which one way or another avoided God always had a system of ethics, and animal studies suggest that anything smart enough to have complex social relationships develops something resembling ethics, which makes sense. We even have a name for people who seem to lack this instinct, which we recognise in other people regardless of whether they believe in a monster in the closet. They're called psychopaths. If you're not a psychopath you can get along without God just fine (and the psychopaths? Well belief isn't really their bag, it's just that if you're looking for people who can be manipulated you'd obviously start with a church...)

But "it's our only source of right and wrong" is one of the few arguments left for people who believe only in a God of the gaps. There are no miracles left for them, their god doesn't actually intervene in their world, powerless to act, trapped by believers like Newton (how ironic). So their myth gets to make all the hard decisions for them. It's a convenient scapegoat. They can tell themselves that they don't enjoy seeing young black men executed, but God demands it. They can vote for the man who'll send millions more into poverty, because he says God is on his side. Pity then the atheist, who has to choose his own path and take responsibility for the consequences.
 

I am Canadian, and I thought this was a great post.

Good work! I agree 100% with your last two paragraphs.
 

There is no God.
 

Nope sorry, people should not be free to believe in god. ;)