Same-sex Marriage.

[lionloversam]

As much as I'm cool with same-sex marriage, I'd like to point you that you don't need to be married to spend your life with someone you love, thats a crazy assumption to make.

You are right. I wish I could remember what my intent was with that statement. I guess I should of said "People should be able to choose who they want to marry." But, with how I originally worded it, you are right with it being a crazy assumption.

Do gay(or whatever term you want to use) people find it gross when they see heterosexual people kissing?

I'm Bi and I don't have a problem with it. Just as long as (as it has already been said) they aren't salivating all over each other.

[Dare]

Eh, I don't know how the Powers-That-Be regard same-sex marriage, so I'm going to leave Them out of the equation.

That being said:

If churches/religious groups don't want to perform same-sex marriages, that's cool. I think they have a right to abstain from performing rituals that clearly go against their faith/beliefs/whatever. Ye can't force a church to bestow a sacrament that they feel is undeserving.

However, I see no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to get "married" in a courthouse or town hall - after all, it's not (or at least shouldn't be) a religious institution, right? Ye olde separation of church and state.

Of course, there's the argument over who owns the word "marriage" and changing the definition thereof what whatnot...personally, I don't care what anyone calls it as long as the rights and recognitions are universal. I don't understand why there's so much haggling over vocabulary, but I'm not a lawmaker or politician so I guess bumping up the rights of civil unions is more complicated than I feel it should be...

Meh.

In the end, I guess I just think it's ridiculous that two gay people cannot get "married" and have that legal rights, protections, and inter-state government recognition as married hetero couples. The entire Proposition 8 thing made me grate my teeth too - one year a gay couple is married, the next year gay marriage is banned, and then the proponents of Prop 8 wanted to retroactively nullify all the gay marriages that took place before the ban. Call me crazy, but that just seems wrong to me.

On a side note - does anyone know where I can read an argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve some sort of tie to a spiritual/religious belief? Something completely secular? I've been searching for a while and have read a few but I'm always interested in reading more.

Do gay(or whatever term you want to use) people find it gross when they see heterosexual people kissing?

I don't, but then again I'm bi, so I dunno if that skews the results. So long as they're not gropin' up a storm or something, they're fine... and it's not like I going to sit around and watch 'em anyway. I don't have to - I have cable television.

[Juniper]

Eh, I don't know how the Powers-That-Be regard same-sex marriage, so I'm going to leave Them out of the equation.

That being said:

If churches/religious groups don't want to perform same-sex marriages, that's cool. I think they have a right to abstain from performing rituals that clearly go against their faith/beliefs/whatever. Ye can't force a church to bestow a sacrament that they feel is undeserving.

However, I see no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to get "married" in a courthouse or town hall - after all, it's not (or at least shouldn't be) a religious institution, right? Ye olde separation of church and state.

Of course, there's the argument over who owns the word "marriage" and changing the definition thereof what whatnot...personally, I don't care what anyone calls it as long as the rights and recognitions are universal. I don't understand why there's so much haggling over vocabulary, but I'm not a lawmaker or politician so I guess bumping up the rights of civil unions is more complicated than I feel it should be...

Meh.

In the end, I guess I just think it's ridiculous that two gay people cannot get "married" and have that legal rights, protections, and inter-state government recognition as married hetero couples. Ah well...

On a side note - does anyone know where I can read an argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve some sort of tie to a spiritual/religious belief? Something completely secular? I've been searching for a while and have read a few but I'm always interested in reading more.

You're always a voice of reason, I appreciate that.

You could always look towards arguments regarding natural order. I'm not a huge fan of natural order authority myself, as I believe humans are free moral agents who are free to defy their own nature. But, as a quick synopsis: Things ought to behave according to their nature. Humans naturally form mating pairs with the opposite sex, thus all humans ought to form mating pairs with the opposite sex. Quick notes: Doesn't apply to things like cars and medicine (ie, you can't disqualify the natural order argument by saying that cars are not natural so therefore we shouldn't use them) because tool use is a natural trait of humans. Also, if humans naturally make free moral choices and are not bound by their nature, then this argument falls apart.

[Revo]

You could always look towards arguments regarding natural order. I'm not a huge fan of natural order authority myself, as I believe humans are free moral agents who are free to defy their own nature. But, as a quick synopsis: Things ought to behave according to their nature. Humans naturally form mating pairs with the opposite sex, thus all humans ought to form mating pairs with the opposite sex. Quick notes: Doesn't apply to things like cars and medicine (ie, you can't disqualify the natural order argument by saying that cars are not natural so therefore we shouldn't use them) because tool use is a natural trait of humans. Also, if humans naturally make free moral choices and are not bound by their nature, then this argument falls apart.
(emphasis added)

Forgive my ignorance, but could you back the bolded bit up with something? Because as it stands, the assumption doesn't seem justified in my eyes. This of course delves into the definition of what is "natural", which is still up for grabs. If we take natural to mean something that is readily found in nature, then this natural order argument doesn't work.
And as a follow up question: What reason is there to think that what is natural (whatever definition you're using) for some humans should also be natural to all humans?

For Wicked, this video pretty much sums up any and all arguments I've heard against same-sex marriage, secular or otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o
Alas, the arguments are very simplified (maybe overly so) for the sake of emphasis. But any argument that I've heard so far can eventually be boiled down to one or several of the points made in that video.

[Juniper]

Forgive my ignorance, but could you back the bolded bit up with something? Because as it stands, the assumption doesn't seem justified in my eyes. This of course delves into the definition of what is "natural", which is still up for grabs. If we take natural to mean something that is readily found in nature, then this natural order argument doesn't work.
And as a follow up question: What reason is there to think that what is natural (whatever definition you're using) for some humans should also be natural to all humans?

For Wicked, this video pretty much sums up any and all arguments I've heard against same-sex marriage, secular or otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o
Alas, the arguments are very simplified (maybe overly so) for the sake of emphasis. But any argument that I've heard so far can eventually be boiled down to one or several of the points made in that video.

I may have simplified the argument a bit, given that I only used a few sentences to sum up an argument that took around eighty pages to defend. This is an argument that's generally accepted within academic philosophy as being troublesome for natural order theory (NOT); I'll try to find you a link to the actual argument. Natural order is its own authority (such as Divine Command Theory, or other authorities), there is no higher power to define what is natural and what is not. Our definition of what is natural does not change what is actually natural -- our definition would simply be incorrect. If I recall, in NOT you use a prototype of a species. The prototypical human naturally forms mating pairs with the opposite sex -- That's how their physiology works, and if this was not true, then there would be no species homo sapiens.

To clarify, another argument would be:
1. Hippos naturally belong in the water
2. One hippo never enters the water
3. That hippo is not fulfilling its inherent "hippo-ness," that is not good

I'm afraid that I can't really help you with natural order beyond that, as I said before, I really don't drink the kool-aid with natural order theory because of some pretty big holes. My biggest problem isn't the definition of what's natural, but why behaving according to one's nature is all that important for free moral agents.

[Revo]

I may have simplified the argument a bit, given that I only used a few sentences to sum up an argument that took around eighty pages to defend. This is an argument that's generally accepted within academic philosophy as being troublesome for natural order theory (NOT); I'll try to find you a link to the actual argument. Natural order is its own authority (such as Divine Command Theory, or other authorities), there is no higher power to define what is natural and what is not. Our definition of what is natural does not change what is actually natural -- our definition would simply be incorrect. If I recall, in NOT you use a prototype of a species. The prototypical human naturally forms mating pairs with the opposite sex -- That's how their physiology works, and if this was not true, then there would be no species homo sapiens.

To clarify, another argument would be:
1. Hippos naturally belong in the water
2. One hippo never enters the water
3. That hippo is not fulfilling its inherent "hippo-ness," that is not good

I'm afraid that I can't really help you with natural order beyond that, as I said before, I really don't drink the kool-aid with natural order theory because of some pretty big holes. My biggest problem isn't the definition of what's natural, but why behaving according to one's nature is all that important for free moral agents.

No fear, your post filled my curiosity well enough. Thanks.
And I just need to say that I have now fallen in love with the word "hippo-ness"

[ThiagoPE]

wow, even here!

Brazil has legalized the same-sex mariage last week, and so its the subject of the moment here, lot´s of "couples" are making their marriage ceremony.

If you want my opinion, I think everone has the right to share their live with anyone who he/she wants, the govern can even grant rights, recognizing them as a "stable union" , however "marriage" for me is a synonimun of "become a family", which same sex coulples can´t be naturally...