Pope Scolds Canada

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

I have nothing against a legal civil union for a same sex couple, but I have a big problem with it being called a marriage.

Personally, if I was worried about that (which I'm not in the least), I think I'd be more worried about someone like Britney Spears heading down to Las Vegas to marry an old friend for the hell of it in front of an Elvis impersonator, and calling that a 'marriage'.

[Azure]

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a ****ing match about gay rights, and abortion.

My opinion, I agree with gay marriage based soley on the fact that everyone should have equal rights. I also think the Pope should worry more about his own Church, than countries like Canada.

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Personally, if I was worried about that (which I'm not in the least), I think I'd be more worried about someone like Britney Spears heading down to Las Vegas to marry an old friend for the hell of it in front of an Elvis impersonator, and calling that a 'marriage'.

Well, there's another situation that I personally feel makes a mockery of marriage. I don't really want to list everything here, so lets just say that there are lots of things related to marriage that go on today that I am totally against, and gay marriage happens to be a very high profile instance.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

Well, there's another situation that I personally feel makes a mockery of marriage. I don't really want to list everything here, so lets just say that there are lots of things related to marriage that go on today that I am totally against, and gay marriage happens to be a very high profile instance.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion.

I'm completely pro-gay marriage myself, and really could care less what an old German man in a white robe thinks of Canada or the way Canadians run their country.

Equal rights isn't a bad thing.

[Aegypticus]

I have nothing against same sex unions that are in every way identical to a marriage except in name. Call me anal or whatever if you want to. I think you can have equal rights while still drawing a distinguishing line between the 2 things. I don't think anyone can argue that a traditional marriage (emphasis on traditional) is likely to result in a very different life for the partners than the average same sex union. While one of the goals of a traditional marriage is procreation and whatever comes with that territory, as far as I can tell the push for same sex unions is mostly based on the desire for protection under the law and for society to accept and recognize the bond.

But to me, calling it marriage is somewhat akin to saying, "forget calling an apple an apple and forget calling an orange an orange. Let's just lump it all together and call it fruit." Well, I think there is a good reason to distinguish between different fruits just as I think there are good reasons to distinguish the types of unions, whether or not they offer the same rights and (almost) the same legal definitions.

[FlamesAddiction]

Let's just make it so no one can be "married". Let's call them all "civil unions".

Problem solved, right?

[Displaced Flames fan]

I have a problem, presonally, with abortion when it is used as a form of birth control....which it is all too often. However I have a bigger problem with the pro-life movement, its tactics and the ensuing insanity. I also fully support legal abortion especially when it is restricted. Here's where pro-choicers lose me...no restrictions on abortion because its an intrusion on your personal freedom? Come on.

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Let's just make it so no one can be "married". Let's call them all "civil unions".

Problem solved, right?

How so? Everyone is still lumped together into one big mess. I still think it makes perfectly logical sense to have a distinction.

[PYroMaNiaC]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

I don't think anyone can argue that a traditional marriage (emphasis on traditional) is likely to result in a very different life for the partners than the average same sex union. While the goal of a traditional marriage is procreation and whatever comes with that territory, as far as I can tell the push for same sex unions is mostly based on the desire for protection under the law and for society to accept and recognize the bond.

Procreation? That's why people get married? Come on, now. A traditional marriage between a man and a woman occurrs because they are declaring their love for one another publicly. Which is what gay people are trying to do - a public declaration. It is not based on a desire for protection under the law, because that would happen as a common-law couple living together for some time anyway.
Procreation is what happens when you have unprotected sex. It has nothing to do with a piece of paper from either church or state.

[Aegypticus]

I guess I didn't put enough emphasis on traditional, or maybe I should have said historical. In a lot of places for a lot of history, love was way down on the list of reasons to get married.

Edit: I agree with you that procreation isn't now and wasn't the only goal in the past, so I edited my previous post to reflect that.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

I have nothing against same sex unions that are in every way identical to a marriage except in name. Call me anal or whatever if you want to.

If they are identical then why should they be called any different?

[Aegypticus]

I shouldn't have said "in every way". Cleary they wouldn't be the same in every way. I should have said that it would provide identical rights to each partner.

I'm trying to present a cohesive argument, but without editing before posting it's hard to catch all the small gaffes. I'm not going edit, either, because I don't want CP to feel like school.

Please allow me to correct, myself, though.

[PYroMaNiaC]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

I guess I didn't put enough emphasis on traditional, or maybe I should have said historical. In a lot of places for a lot of history, love was way down on the list of reasons to get married.

Edit: I agree with you that procreation isn't now and wasn't the only goal in the past, so I edited my previous post to reflect that.

Duly noted.

But I still don't understand your fixation with history. There are a million examples of things done in the past that are not considered normal today. History says little 13 year old girls were married off because they were commodities to be traded. Tradition and history should be studied so as not to repeat mistakes. It is not to be lived in. I don't understand why you would consider the historical past in making moral choices for today.

[shoestring]

I'd like to have a dozen beers with the pope.
And the queen of England.
They are fading away aren't they. Nobody really cares about that stuff anymore ,... do they?

[Aegypticus]

I don't feel that I'm looking at history to make moral choices. I think I'm making the correct moral choice based on today, but I am using historical examples as well as my experiences in the present to justify why there should be differentiation. In my mind, there is a need for gay couples to have the same legal rights, but I also think there is a logical distinction between a gay couple and a straight couple. The two are very, very different from where I stand, so I think what they are called should reflect that.

[PYroMaNiaC]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

I don't feel that I'm looking at history to make moral choices. I think I'm making the correct moral choice based on today, but I am using historical examples as well as my experiences in the present to justify why there should be differentiation. In my mind, there is a need for gay couples to have the same legal rights, but I also think there is a logical distinction between a gay couple and a straight couple. The two are very, very different from where I stand, so I think what they are called should reflect that.

Historical examples of what, though? Historically, marriage was a means to an end. To gain land, power, money, resources, slaves, ect. for a man and a status symbol and a protection system for women. Why is that positive or special enough to get it's own definition? Besides that, you are arguing that this is exactly what gay people want to use marriage for - a means to an end.

[Aegypticus]

The only reason I brought up my ONE historical example was to point out that one reason to get married was to carry on the bloodline, or procreation, as I see it. While I think this is valid, I think the historical examples and the traditional definition of marriage may have gotten muddled along the way due to me not writing an essay here but rather replying to this thread at intervals while reading other things on the net and changing my train of thought and then not going back over what I read.

Anyways, I'm trying to sort out my meaning. I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how clearly I've articulated it thus far.

1. I'm for a traditional DEFINITION of marriage. Man and woman. That's all. I guess this is also a historical definition. Also, historically, this union produced babies, whether there was love or money or whatever else involved. I think this is one of a few important distinctions.

2. Although marriages fail so very often today and the historical/traditional definition is being trod upon every day, many, many marriages still create a child or children. A same sex couple is not able to create a child through natural means. (Please don't argue with me about surrogates, adoption, sperm clinics, etc. I want to restrict this to a very narrow view of how a child is created.)

Put these together, and I have just one of my arguments for distinction between them. I think it's valid and I think it's enough to defend myself against accusations of me being a homophobe or a bigot.
A marriage, barring medical issues, is capable of creating a child. A same sex union is not.


In order to put my reason for distinction another way, I would like to compare it to two other examples.

I was anticipating someone comparing my arguments to the segregation by race issues. "Separate but equal". I dont see it that way. I see it more like the difference between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalis. Neanderthals were the same species as humans and possibly lived together as equals, but it would be foolish to try to group them under one common name. The differences are too apparent. It's not the greatest example, but it rings true for me.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

2. Although marriages fail so very often today and the historical/traditional definition is being trod upon every day, many, many marriages still create a child or children. A same sex couple is not able to create a child through natural means. (Please don't argue with me about surrogates, adoption, sperm clinics, etc. I want to restrict this to a very narrow view of how a child is created.)

I think this is a bit of a slippery slope.

Let's say there is a man and a woman who love each other and want to get married. They don't want to have children. This has been agreed upon before they get married........they will live with each other and love each other forever, but don't want any children.......ever.

Should this still be called a marrriage in your mind?

How about a man and a woman that cannot (for whatever reason) have children. Somewhat similar to a gay marriage in the sense that they couldn't have children, no matter how much they wanted to.

Would this still be considered a marriage?

As you can see, 2 different scenarios. One couple can have children but don't want them, the other couple would love to have a family but can't.

[droopydrew19]

Originally Posted by Calgary Flames

The pope can suck my balls

Wow another flippant remark from Gordon...... God this is getting so old.

Hide behind a chatboard persona much?

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

As you can see, 2 different scenarios. One couple can have children but don't want them, the other couple would love to have a family but can't.

I addressed this by saying it's just one qualifier. There are others in my mind that I didn't mention because, like I said, I don't want this to turn into a school paper. You'll just have to trust that I do have other conditions in mind, and I don't think all those conditions must be met.